PDA

View Full Version : Spoke 12



gilgal
06-29-2007, 04:24 PM
I haven't done an in depth research with the #12, but this I found that the subject of one body, many members occurs only in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12.

The King James Bible has 5 verses matching
one body many member .



Romans 12:4
For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:

Romans 12:5
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1 Corinthians 12:12
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:14
For the body is not one member, but many.

1 Corinthians 12:20
But now are they many members, yet but one body.


More on 12:
http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Lamed.asp

-----



Matthew 11:1
And it came to pass, when Jesus had made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and to preach in their cities.


The 12th letter of the Hebrew alphabet is Lamed and it means to teach. The word Talmud, derived from Lamed means disciple.

The 12th book has an important part, commanded by the king of Assyria himself:


2 Kings 17:27
Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land.


The 12th epistle is one of the pastoral epistles:


Titus 1:11
Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
Titus 2:3
The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; Titus 2:4
That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,
Titus 2:12
Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;




Luke 12:12
For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.


Going back to 1 Corinthians 12, my first posting inthis thread we see teach again:


1 Corinthians 12:28
And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12:29
Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

Stephen
07-21-2007, 07:09 AM
Hi Folks!

This is a truly minor point, but one worth sharing nonetheless.

The first time the number 12 appears in the Revelation is at verse 1 of chapter 12. There are 12 uses of 12 preceding this event in the Revelation. These are found at chapter 7, verses 5 to 8. Here, the number being referenced is 12,000 rather than 12. Now the interesting thing is that, in Stephen's 1550 Textus Receptus, all 12 references to the number 12,000 at Revelation 7 are written using Greek gematria to indicate the number 12, i.e. iota - beta, thus iota-beta chiliades for 12,000.
By way of contrast, the verse at Revelation 12:1 uses the Greek word dodeka for the number 12 in the 1550 Textus Receptus.
The word dodeka is used for all subsequent references to the number 12 in the 1550 Stephen's Textus Receptus of Revelation. Curiously, this also includes the 12,000 at Revealtion 21:16, which in this place is written dodeka chiliadon.

Stephen

joel
07-21-2007, 08:56 AM
Stephen, very interesting stuff.

As you presented the initial post, which references the 12th chapter of Romans, and the 12th chapter of I Corinthians, the focus of your observations being body/members; (the functions of the members in Romans 12, and the spiritual endowments/functions in I Corinthians 12),

and, then, as an aside, a follow-up post;

The woman in Revelation 12, with the wreath of 12 stars,

I know from other things that you have presented, that you see the tribes of Israel from a perspective which includes the nations.

I know from other things that Richard has presented, that he sees Israel as having been supplanted by the "church" (Richard, if I am incorrect in this, please adjust me accordingly).

And, I, from other things previously posted, see that the "church" is the "body", and Israel is the "bride".

It is so interesting to me that the woman in Revelation 12 is "pregnant", i.e. preparing to bear a child.

Even though we haven't even begun to discuss this on the Revelation thread, because you bring it up here, I thought it appropriate to lay this out now.

The woman, who is threatened by the dragon, is sheltered for a time, while the dragon goes out to threaten the "rest of her seed".

Maybe you could give some preliminary thoughts on that. Thanks,

Joel

gilgal
07-21-2007, 02:35 PM
The book of Revelation, being prophetic, can be interpreted in many ways, unless it's something that happens in our time.

Some assume that the woman is the church, some as Israel.

Let me give you my opinion. I may be wrong but I find that the woman is the heavenly Jerusalem because at first John sees a sign in the heavens. But later in the chapter the woman is on the earth and two wings are given to her so she could fly in the wilderness. Later her seed is the target of the dragon. And who are the seed? ...which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. In other words - Christians.

I have a hard time understanding myself. These are my questions. If the seed are the Christians then who's the woman? If the dragon leaves the woman and chases the Christians, what then does the woman represent? Well actually in Galatians' allegory of Sarah and Agar ( or Hagar ), Sarah represented the Heavenly Jerusalem whereas Agar was Jerusalem under bondage. And Paul says that Christians are children of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

Also the birth of Christ is something that happened long ago, meaning chapter 12 is going through history and is not something that will happen in the future.

Rose
07-21-2007, 03:44 PM
Hello Joel and Gilgal :yo:

This probably belongs in the Revelation thread, but since it was brought up here I'll briefly present my view of Revelation 12.

I see verse 1) As the woman representing "Israel", with the 12 stars being the 12 Tribes.

In verse 2) The woman (Israel) is about to bring forth Messiah Jesus.

Verse 3 & 4) Satan is waiting to kill Jesus as soon as He is born.

Matt 2:16
"Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under,according to the time which he had determined from the wise men."

Verse 5 & 6) After Jesus is born, establishes who He is, and is crucified and caught up to God and His throne, the Woman (Israel) who now is the fledgling church (the first Christians were Jews), flees to the wilderness for protection from God (because Satan would try to destroy the new church if he could).

Jumping ahead......

Verse 17) it talks about Satan going to make war with the offspring of the woman, which would be those that have the testimony of Jesus "Christians".

This is just a brief overview of chapter 12, there's lots more to talk about :)
but maybe I'll wait till it comes up on the other thread.

Rose

Stephen
07-21-2007, 04:50 PM
Morning Joel, Gilgal and All!

I like that little comment you make, gilgal: "I have a hard time understanding myself". Believe me, you are not alone there, my friend. I also do frequent double-takes on myself, only to find I've been chasing my tail.

Gilgal makes some relevant observations concerning the woman with reference to the remnant of her seed, which are Christians. Note that there are two objects here: (1) the woman, and (2) the remnant of her seed. They are intimately bound together, which I believe is important.

I concur that (2), above, are Christians because of the description of them that follows. As for (1), I believe the woman to be Israel, predominantly and preeminently America. There are many reasons for believing this to be so, some of which come to mind even as I write.

The woman is pregnant at the beginning of the chapter, which represents Israel in the OT context. The crown of 12 stars is without doubt the 12 tribes (Genesis 37:9,10). She then delivers her child, who is our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the seed of the woman.

Here again we have the two objects: the woman, and the seed. The woman is OT Israel, the 12 tribes. I would go so far as to say that she is predominantly Joseph, for in the verse at Genesis 37:9 from where this symbol originates, it is Joseph who is the 12th - and leading - star. Look to the offspring of Joseph to identify the woman, Israel. The second object, the seed, I believe to be Christians.

The woman then experiences a 'seven times' period, which is broken into two parts. At verse 6, she flees into the wilderness, where God has a yet future place prepared for her. At verse 14, she receives the two wings of a great eagle, with which she flies to her place in the wilderness. The two verses use 1260 days and 3-and-a-half times to represent the two halves of the 'seven times'. Why two parts? I'm sure it has to do with her removal, and her regeneration.

I believe the 'seven times' reference comes from Leviticus 26:28, referring to the punishment Israel was to suffer if it rejected God. It is well worth reading Leviticus 26:28-45 to get a grasp on the enormity of what God is doing here. In fact, it is essential reading. Don't bypass it!

The woman receives the two wings of a great eagle. These, I believe, refer to both God Himself (Exodus 19:4-6), and to America. America is the one nation under God that Manasseh, the son of Joseph, was to become (Genesis 48:19). The fulfillment of this blessing was deferred 'seven times' because Manasseh was unworthy, along with the rest of Israel, to receive it in OT times.

I believe the 'seven times' to be seven prophetic times of years. Thus, 7 x 360 years, as the prophetic year consists of 360 days, as evidenced by 3-and-a-half times = 1260 days = 42 months in the Revelation. That's 2520 years, which consists of 50 x 50 sabbaths of years, plus a little more. That's how we are to understand the punishment in Leviticus 26.

East Manasseh was the first tribe to go into exile, being the closest to Assyria. It is a fact that the neo-Assyrian empire began in 745 BC with Tilgath-Pilneser III's accession to the throne. It was he who began the deportation of Israel, which was completed with the fall of Samaria in about 720 BC. Counting forward 2520 years - the 'seven times' of the woman - from the accession of Tilgath-Pilneser III brings us to 1776. The woman arrives at her place in the wilderness of America exactly on cue. For all this time, she was hidden from the dragon's view, because she no more bore the name Israel.

I believe the woman - who is Israel, predominantly Joseph, particularly Manasseh - is today representative of America. The remnant of the woman's seed represents Christianity, which has its earthly sanctuary today in America. America is the haven of the Christian church. You only need open your own history books to see this written large. Or your wallet, for that matter. All your currency is stamped with In God We Trust. It's written on your Declaration of Independence, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence". You recite it in your Pledge of Allegiance, "one nation under God". The two symbols - the woman and the seed = Israel and the church - work concurrently. Importantly, the seed does not replace, or supplant, the woman. They complement one another.

Small wonder the dragon lost sight of the woman, for you Americans don't even know who you really are!!!!!!! It takes a Kiwi, which is a small flightless bird from New Zealand, to try and rouse you, the mighty American Eagle, out of your amnesiac slumber. How fittingly the name Manasseh applies to you, for it means 'causing to forget'.

This, in brief, is how I interpret the symbols of Revelation 12. I see it as a gradual unfolding of the history of Israel, from OT times right up to the present. Of course, the devil knows who you are now that your 'seven times' punishment has been fulfilled. Note, too, that all of the above views also intersect with the story from Eden, recounted at Genesis 3. As ever, you have to fill in the gaps yourself by meditating upon these verses and these stories. I won't have time to flesh out this argument for quite a while, and shouldn't really have to for now.

The interpretation I have given flies in the face of what most have probably been taught. That's hardly surprising. Most Christians still think that the Jews are Israel, when the Bible plainly teaches that this is error. I have found that most Christians have this erroneous belief so ingrained in them, that it takes forever to extract it. Even when they recognise that it is error, they invariably fall back into it. This absolutely fundamental error is clearly something that lies at a subconscious level. As you've probably noticed from many of my posts, I constantly attack this thinking error, and will continue to do so whenever I see it in a post. Without a clear and integrated understanding of the different roles of the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah, you will never properly understand the OT. That is a sad and undeniable fact!

A final note. The woman cannot be the heavenly Jerusalem or the church. The woman carried the seed of God, which is our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ precedes the church, not the other way round, so it can't be the church. Israel carried the promises relating to the seed, so she fits the bill perfectly. Also, the heavenly Jerusalem cannot be the woman, for the reasons gilgal stated, and because the heavenly Jerusalem did not bear the man child, the incarnate Lord. Again, only OT Israel fits the bill.

Stephen

PS: Just read Rose's post. Rose, you are confusing your terms, which is a common misunderstanding. You have now conflated two symbols from the verse: the woman, and her seed. The verse doesn't allow you to do this. It maintains the distinction throughout, differentiatiating between the woman, and the remnant of her seed. The church is most definitely not Israel, just as the remnant of the seed of the woman is most definitely not the woman. It is a lot more synergetic than you imagine. The woman, and the remnant of her seed, are complementary, and are to be understood accordingly. But they are not to be confused as being one and the same.

gilgal
07-21-2007, 04:52 PM
Though it's true that Jesus was born and come from the tribe of Judah of Israel, I'm more inclined to think that it has something to do with Galatians 4 where Sarah represented the Jerusalem above from whom we are all children. But Jerusalem at the present time is under bondage.

If the entire chapter is a resume of the church era from the birth of Jesus Christ to the present time, then who does the dragon represent? Who are the 10 horns, 7 heads? Herod tried to kill Christ during his birth. The dragon tried to devour him. Is this referring to the birth or temptation?

What is the water that comes out of the dragon's mouth? Is it literal or symbolical? The symbolical may be the word of the dragon or propaganda against Christians.

Then the following chapter Revelation 13, the beast comes out of that water, it seems.

Stephen
07-21-2007, 06:36 PM
I don't think so! The woman cannot be heavenly Jerusalem, and she cannot be the allegorical Sara in Galatians. She is clearly on the earth, and is the subject of the dragon's pursuit (verse 13). Heavenly Jerusalem neither fled from anyone, nor had a place in any wilderness.

The woman can only be Israel. She is crowned with the 12 tribes (Genesis 37:9,10). In her we find not only Joseph's inheritance, but also Jewry. It is surely one of the great wonders of our Christian age that the Jews finally found sanctuary, free from persecution, in none other than America. Jesus prophesied this at Revelation 3:9. Today, Jews enjoy greater freedom and security in America than they have ever had anywhere else. America also has the largest Jewish population of any nation on earth.

As stated, I believe that the chapter is much more than a resume of the church age. The woman predates the church. In fact, the church was born from her according to the text of chapter 12. The woman is Israel, and exists today as a nation, which the text helps us to identify.

For ideas of what the flood might represent, check out this early draft of the Great Seal at:

http://greatseal.com/committees/firstcomm/reverse.html

For a play on this theme, check out:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/loc/czars1.html

Both motifs depend on the crossing of the Red Sea under Moses for their meaning. I think this is also implied in the relevant verse at Revelation 12:15. Note, too, that the flood is meant for the woman rather than for the remnant of her seed. These are the tribes of Israel, most notably Joseph and Judah, as portrayed in the links.

Stephen

Richard Amiel McGough
07-21-2007, 11:29 PM
The woman is pregnant at the beginning of the chapter, which represents Israel in the OT context. The crown of 12 stars is without doubt the 12 tribes (Genesis 37:9,10). She then delivers her child, who is our Lord Jesus Christ. He is the seed of the woman.
Amen. Complete agreement.


Here again we have the two objects: the woman, and the seed. The woman is OT Israel, the 12 tribes. I would go so far as to say that she is predominantly Joseph, for in the verse at Genesis 37:9 from where this symbol originates, it is Joseph who is the 12th - and leading - star. Look to the offspring of Joseph to identify the woman, Israel. The second object, the seed, I believe to be Christians.
Now we have a strong disagreement. First, the "woman" is a corporate symbol of faithful Israel regardless of tribe affiliation. If there is one error I have found in your conception of Israel it is that you confuse fleshly Israel with faithful Israel. That's why Paul said "not all that are of Israel are Israel. The people you call "Israel" are not Israel. They are the children of the flesh, not the children of God.

So a proper understanding of the Woman is that she represents Faithful Israel, not fleshly Israel. She is to be identified with the faithful community of YHVH which is now known as Christians.


The woman then experiences a 'seven times' period, which is broken into two parts. At verse 6, she flees into the wilderness, where God has a yet future place prepared for her. At verse 14, she receives the two wings of a great eagle, with which she flies to her place in the wilderness. The two verses use 1260 days and 3-and-a-half times to represent the two halves of the 'seven times'. Why two parts? I'm sure it has to do with her removal, and her regeneration.

I believe the 'seven times' reference comes from Leviticus 26:28, referring to the punishment Israel was to suffer if it rejected God. It is well worth reading Leviticus 26:28-45 to get a grasp on the enormity of what God is doing here. In fact, it is essential reading. Don't bypass it!

The woman receives the two wings of a great eagle. These, I believe, refer to both God Himself (Exodus 19:4-6), and to America. America is the one nation under God that Manasseh, the son of Joseph, was to become (Genesis 48:19). The fulfillment of this blessing was deferred 'seven times' because Manasseh was unworthy, along with the rest of Israel, to receive it in OT times.
You have said this so many times Stephen, but I still have nothing solid to bite into. No real evidence. Nothing from the Bible that would convince me. I just don't understand why you are convinced on a point that you can not support with real evidence. (Said with full respect for my brother in Christ, of course! :yo:)


Small wonder the dragon lost sight of the woman, for you Americans don't even know who you really are!!!!!!! It takes a Kiwi, which is a small flightless bird from New Zealand, to try and rouse you, the mighty American Eagle, out of your amnesiac slumber. How fittingly the name Manasseh applies to you, for it means 'causing to forget'.
What evidence are we supposed to use to support this "Manasseh" claim? We are Christians called forth from the Gentiles, just like the Bible says! The Bible never says a word about Paul as an "Apostle to the Ten Lost Tribes!" I think this is a fatal flaw in your system. And besides all that, I just don't understand why you think its important, or why you think its true. Could you please explain these points?


This, in brief, is how I interpret the symbols of Revelation 12. I see it as a gradual unfolding of the history of Israel, from OT times right up to the present.
Faithful Israel believed her GOD when He come to Her in the flesh (Jesus Christ.) Thus, Faithful Israel all believe in Jesus Christ. This means that Israel is the Church, and always has been.

If you disagree, please engage me on this exact point. Faithful Israel did not deny the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, Faithful Israel is the Church.


The interpretation I have given flies in the face of what most have probably been taught.
Actually, it flies in the face of what I think the Bible teaches, not what some man or woman has taught.


That's hardly surprising. Most Christians still think that the Jews are Israel, when the Bible plainly teaches that this is error. I have found that most Christians have this erroneous belief so ingrained in them, that it takes forever to extract it.
I think you have forgotten that the Apostle Paul uses the terms "Jew" and "Israel" interchangeably, and that you admitted such in an earlier post. So you probably don't want to pick on this point to heavily.


Even when they recognise that it is error, they invariably fall back into it. This absolutely fundamental error is clearly something that lies at a subconscious level. As you've probably noticed from many of my posts, I constantly attack this thinking error, and will continue to do so whenever I see it in a post. Without a clear and integrated understanding of the different roles of the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah, you will never properly understand the OT. That is a sad and undeniable fact!
I think you have already committed that very error when you identified the woman with Manasseh, since the Lord sprang from Judah, and Manasseh was nowhere near Jerusalem at the time Christ was born.


A final note. The woman cannot be the heavenly Jerusalem or the church. The woman carried the seed of God, which is our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ precedes the church, not the other way round, so it can't be the church.
This is a false understanding of the Biblical meaning of "church." The Church (qahal in the OT, ecclessia in the NT) has existed since God called forth Abram. The word "church" means "the called ones of God." Israel was the Church before Christ came, and Israel is the Church today. It never changed. The only thing that changed was that membership now is by faith alone, whereas in the OT you could be born into fleshly Israel. That's why God broke of the unbelieving branches after Christ came.


Israel carried the promises relating to the seed, so she fits the bill perfectly. Also, the heavenly Jerusalem cannot be the woman, for the reasons gilgal stated, and because the heavenly Jerusalem did not bear the man child, the incarnate Lord. Again, only OT Israel fits the bill.

Stephen

PS: Just read Rose's post. Rose, you are confusing your terms, which is a common misunderstanding. You have now conflated two symbols from the verse: the woman, and her seed. The verse doesn't allow you to do this. It maintains the distinction throughout, differentiatiating between the woman, and the remnant of her seed. The church is most definitely not Israel, just as the remnant of the seed of the woman is most definitely not the woman. It is a lot more synergetic than you imagine. The woman, and the remnant of her seed, are complementary, and are to be understood accordingly. But they are not to be confused as being one and the same.

Stephen, I believe you have made an invalid distinction between the symbol of the Woman and her Children. The "Mother" can not be a bunch of Christ denying fleshly unbelievers if her children are defined as believers in Christ. The entire Bible mitigates against such a position. The fact that Israel is the Church has been proven a hundred times on this forum, and NO ONE has ever directly challenged me on that point. Why not? If I am wrong, why have you not pointed out my error? Come on, my friend, lets take this one to the mat. I believe I have proven the point. Please show me my error.

In the Peace and Grace of God,

Richard

Stephen
07-22-2007, 05:37 AM
Hi Richard!

Tell you what I'll do. I'll answer your queries, but first I'd like you to show me how the following could ever conceivably be said to be the church, seeing that the church is now Israel.

(1) Genesis 49. The blessings of the tribes of Israel. You say the church is Israel, therefore the following must be fulfilled in the church, since she is now Israel. Who is Joseph? How are his blessings fulfilled in the church? How is his promise of enormous prosperity fulfilled in the church? Who is Reuben? Who is Simeon? Who is Gad? How do their specific blessings relate to the church? Where are they now? How do we distinguish between these so-called churches? What is the church of Simeon? What is the church of Gad? What is the church of Reuben? Do these distinctions still apply? What is the purpose of even bothering with these blessings to distinct tribes if they're all going to come under the umbrella term 'church'?

(2) Deuteronomy 33. Who is who today? Who is Reuben? How does the Mosaic blessing apply to him today? What church is he? How about Joseph? When did the church become a pair of global superpowers? When did the church gore the people, pushing them to the ends of the earth? Who is Moses referring to when he pronounces a blessing to the tribes of Issachar and Zebulun? Is it the church, or is it two tribes? Why bother with any specific blessings, if the 'church' is going to obliterate any of these distinctions? In fact, why even bother with Israel? Why even bother with them having a history? What is the purpose of these blessings in relation to the church being Israel?

(3) You have regularly pushed the point that the words spoken in the Bible must have an immediate meaning to those to whom they were addressed. You are therefore contradicting your own dictum by wresting these blessings from their primary context, which was an address to specific tribes of real people, and then saying that these people no longer matter! This means that God wasted his time giving these blessings, and having them recorded, since they can never be fulfilled at their primary level, since the tribes have been done away with, and God is no longer concerned with them. Where is the sense in that? Were the tribes supposed to understand that these promises were never meant literally? What would Moses say to you if you said that the promises he pronounced are not literal? What would the tribes say to you if you said the promises being given to them are not literal?

These are just three points which you will need to seriously address. And they are merely the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds more suchlike queries yet to be enounced on this one issue.
I believe you are wiping out parts of Scripture if you say these prophecies no longer apply, unless you can prove conclusively that the church fulfills them all. You will then need to provide a credible reason for why they are distinguished one from another. Why are distinctive tribes given distinctive blessings if the distinctions themselves are going to be removed by their being fulfilled by an umbrella term called 'the church'? Such a strategy is simply illogical. I would go so far as to say that a huge swathe of the OT might as well be removed from your Bible, because it no longer needs to be there if God has done away with the tribes.

Please show me conclusively from Scripture that God no longer has any interest in the tribes of Israel. Show me conclusively that He has finished with them forever. The verses you have quoted prove nothing of the sort, that God no longer deals with the twelve tribes. Of course God still deals with them! They are going to be there in the New Jerusalem! God says over and over and over again that He will have mercy on them, after that He has punished them. The OT prophets, in declaring this, did not speak to any church other than to the tribes of Israel. If you say that the church is now these tribes of Israel, prove it from Scripture. If you say that these tribes no longer matter, and have been done away with in the eyes of God, passed over for the church, you negate the prophecies spoken over them.

I would politely suggest that you need to dust off your OT and start doing some serious study on the twelve tribes. I know you still fall back on the old error that the Jews are physical Israel, which they are, but only in part. This is ingrained in your thinking, as it is with most Christians. I've still seen you referring to OT Israel as the Jews every now and then. This shows me that you haven't engaged with this issue deeply yet.
All the NT verses you quote in regard to the church now having supplanted Israel must be rethought in light of what God says concerning physical Israel. What happened to physical Israel? What do we mean by physical Israel? What is the difference between Israel and Judah? When did Israel go into exile? Why was she exiled? What did the prophets say of her future, even after she had long gone? What did Hosea say about her? What did Jeremiah say about her? What did Isaiah say about her? What did God say about her in the Law? Did God say He would cast her off forever? Did God say that she would morph into the church? If so, how does this affect all the many prophecies spoken over the tribes, many of them piercingly specific?

Richard, you are still not seeing the bigger picture, my friend. You are still locked into this thinking error that the church is Israel, and that's all that God uses. Not so. His plan was always a lot bigger than that. Go and dust off your OT and get stuck into it. Learn about the tribes. Learn about why God chose them in the first place. He did it for a reason, one which you are just not seeing yet. Lay your NT aside for a time. Take off your type / antitype hat, and start absorbing the words in the OT afresh, without the narrow theological lens you are accustomed to seeing the tribes through.

I know I haven't done much of a job as concerns marshalling evidence yet. Don't worry. I've truly only cast bare bones into the ring so far, and that has been a deliberate ploy. I want readers to do their own work first. Go away, think about it, get into the OT, seek God in prayer on the issue. Again I say, seek God in prayer on the issue. I mean it!

Now, if you can satisfactorily answer for yourself - not for me - all the queries that I posed at the top of the page, then you can rest easy in the position you currently have in regard to God dismissing the twelve tribes from His plan, and dealing only with the church. But be honest with yourself. If you can't find specific answers to those questions - and they are entirely relevant to this issue - then you need to keep digging until you find a satisfactory and convincing answer. Then you can share it with me. And once you've done that, I will work harder to convince you why I am firmly convinced that, at least on this issue, that the Bible clearly distinguishes between the church and Israel.

I'm glad you are prepared to discuss this issue, my bro. But I want you to do more than just discuss it. That goes for all who might be reading this thread. I would like you to start coming to grips with what Israel was really all about in God's plan, because you clearly don't have much of an idea yet. If you really want to know why God chose the twelve tribes of Israel, you're going to have to get right into your OT. There's no other way around that. No cursory glance will do. All that does is cause one to look for things to buttress one's opinion. No, to get a deeper answer you need to read deeply. Think. Pray. Consider. Reread. Rethink. Pray again.

I'm not sorry that I'm not offering you any ready-made answers to your questions, Richard. I'm doing you a service by telling you what I believe you need to do. If I give you answers, you are not challenging your position. It will only be me who is challenging your position. I'm only giving you what I think you need, which is a whole bunch of questions to go away and work on. You will learn infinitely more that way, if you keep an open mind. I believe the Lord would do exactly the same thing.

Please resist the impulse to answer this post with immediacy. I know it's another long post, but that's just the way it is. It probably needed to be. This is the best post I have posted so far. Lately, I've been coming to terms with the realisation that we should each have to put in the effort to get our answers. Spoon-feeding is not for those who have been in Christ a long time. I say all this in love, my brother. The intent on my part to prove that I'm right is minimal. I'm long past that point now. All I really want is for you, and others noseying in on this thread, to go away and do some really thorough research, which means finding satisfactory answers to the hard questions from Scripture.

Many blessings in Christ's wonderful name,

Stephen

Richard Amiel McGough
07-22-2007, 09:52 AM
Hey there Stephen,

The questions you raise are important and interesting and easy to answer. But I see no value in chasing the wind. It seems to me you stirred up that HUGE dust cloud of questions in order to obscure the fact that you can not answer my simple and direct Biblical proofs that Israel is the Church.

I would be happy to answer your questions if you would do me the reciprocal honor of answering that actual arguments I have presented, since I believe they are simple, powerful, Biblical, clear, and conclusive.

Thanks!

Richard

gilgal
07-22-2007, 11:05 AM
Are the twelve stars a hint that the woman is Israel?
Hmmmm... I don't know because the New Jerusalem had the 12 gates' names according to the twelve tribes plus the twelve apostles.

Now I know that the 12 stars can't be the 12 apostles because they joined Christ during his ministry.

Actually Sarah and Israel have one thing in common, in their name. Sarah means princess or ruler and Israel means he shall rule with God.

And going back to Galatians, take note of this that Paul is writing against the Judaizers. And by warning about them he's explaining the distinction of the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem. And at the end he mentions the Israel of God.

Please take note of this:


Galatians 6
15For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
17From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
18Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

Since Israel means he shall rule with God, I take it that he is referring to the believers whether it would be Jews or Gentiles.

Wasn't Ruth a Gentile? wasn't Rahab a Gentile? I think Caleb was also a Gentile. Uriah was also a Gentile, a Hitite. But they were part of Israel.

So were the Gibeonites from Joshua 9. And 2 Samuel 21 where David had to settle the conflict that Saul had created by massacring them.

Stephen
07-29-2007, 09:59 PM
Hi gilgal! Hi Richard!

I think you missed the point, gilgal. There were very few restrictions on foreigners joining Israel, that is not up for discussion. What we really want to know is this: Is the church now Israel? By that I mean, is the church all Israel, and has God done away with physical Israel for good? Or has the church now absorbed all the promises that God made to the 12 tribes? Or is the church, in fact, only part of Israel? And does God still have a plan that includes physical Israel?

Romans 11 makes it abundantly clear that the church is most certainly NOT all Israel. And no amount of squirming can try to 'spiritualise' away that truth. Paul makes a very clear distinction in Romans, chapters 9 through to 11, between the church and physical Israel. Paul tells us that God is working out His plan through both parties, the church and physical Israel.

I believe Richard is wrong when he discounts physical Israel from the equation. Romans 9 to 11 makes this clear. This basic error that I see in Richard's case results in his skewed views concerning the woman at Revelation 12, and, indeed, in his discounting of most of the OT.

Richard, I have noticed that you have a tendency to make statements about what a verse means, but you don't support some of your views with Scripture. When you say the woman is faithful Israel, you don't back it up. Where did you get this faithful part from? You use the stock quote from Romans 9:6, but you ignore the entire discourse from which that quote comes. You fail to read all of Romans 9 to 11, to find what Paul's conclusions are on this matter. My counsel to you is to read the whole three chapters. The great irony is that you say I confuse faithful Israel for fleshly Israel. That is almost the inverse principle with which I have been problematising your own views! I am faulting you for you saying that the church alone is Israel, and the matter is finished. I believe that Paul himself would take you to task on this matter, and, in fact, has done so (Romans 11:25).

Where does the verse say the woman is faithful Israel? Where does it say that this is the proper understanding of the symbol? All I see is your opinion, Richard. But you fail to acknowledge that fact. I disagree that the woman is faithful Israel. I believe she is Israel, but there is nothing there to indicate she is faithful Israel. What do you mean by that term anyway? Are you saying the church is faithful Israel? If that's what you mean, you've got some leaks in your argument in trying to say the woman is the church. Just where exactly did the church suddenly become all Israel at the expense of the OT crowd who bore that designation?

You also state in your funny kind of logic that faithful Israel is the church because she believed God. So what about physical Israel? Are they no more Israel? Has God cast them off forever? Are they never to be heard from again? Excuse me for having to point this out to you, but have a read of what God says on the issue:

Romans 11, the whole chapter.
Isaiah 41:8,9.
Jeremiah 31:35-37.
1 Samuel 12:22.
Jeremiah 30:10,11.
Jeremiah 46:27,28.
Isaiah 49:13-17.

Of course God never cast them away! Read these verses, and understand them in their context. This is not the church that the prophets are speaking to. It is Israel. Paul knew all this, which is why we have Romans 11.

Isaiah 49:6.

Christ's role was to raise up the tribes of Israel. That hasn't entirely been fulfilled yet, but it's definitely getting there.

Ezekiel 36:21-24.

God saves the tribes of Israel for His own name's sake.

There are stacks of other verses I could muster, but I'm wondering if it's even worth my time. So I will refer you back to Romans 11. Basically, if you can't come to grips with what Paul is saying there concerning physical Israel, there's little more that I can offer to help you, brother. :(

I'm interested to know what answers you came up with for the questions that form the HUGE dust-storm I kicked up a week ago. Quite a storm, too! :p. But seriously, those were promises that belonged to particular peoples for the last days. I'd expect such promises to be pretty much fulfilled by now, these being the last days and all.

Stephen

Richard Amiel McGough
07-29-2007, 11:01 PM
Hi gilgal! Hi Richard!

I think you missed the point, gilgal. There were very few restrictions on foreigners joining Israel, that is not up for discussion. What we really want to know is this: Is the church now Israel? By that I mean, is the church all Israel, and has God done away with physical Israel for good?
Now that's a gooood question!

Hi Stephen! Hi Gilgal!

Stephen, could you please acknowledge I never have said a word about Israel being "done away with by God"? That has never been my assertion. If you don't deal with what I actually am saying, you'll just be boxing the air.

The Bible says that Israel is the Church. The unbelieving natural sons of Jacob (aka Israel) were broken off because of unbelief. The believing Gentiles were grafted into the Vine (Christ) with the believing remnant of Israel. The branches that have been broken off though unbelief can be grafted back in if they do not remain in unbelief.

Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?


Or has the church now absorbed all the promises that God made to the 12 tribes? Or is the church, in fact, only part of Israel? And does God still have a plan that includes physical Israel?
The Bible explicitly answers those questions.


Galatians 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. We Christians, who are defined as the set of all believers whether of Israel or of the Gentiles, are heirs according to all the promises that God gave to Israel.

The unbelievers are branches broken off. They no inheritance as long as they have no faith.

Are you really suggesting that God counts the unbelievers as "heirs of the promises"? That's contrary to every word of the Bible.


Romans 11 makes it abundantly clear that the church is most certainly NOT all Israel. And no amount of squirming can try to 'spiritualise' away that truth.
There is no "squirming" - the facts are plain. Think about what you are saying. The Christian Church was totally identified with Israel when it began. It never was broken off of Israel. Only unbelievers were broken off. Why can't you see this? (And for that matter, why don't you answer this point? I have repeated it a hundred times now).


Paul makes a very clear distinction in Romans, chapters 9 through to 11, between the church and physical Israel. Paul tells us that God is working out His plan through both parties, the church and physical Israel.
Granted, physical Israel are the branches broken off. All Romans 9-11 says is that they can be grafted back in if they don't remain in unbelief. The rest of your assertions are highly debatable.


I believe Richard is wrong when he discounts physical Israel from the equation.
I do not "discount" physical Israel. I speak what the Bible speaks. Physical Israel consists of branches that were broken off because of unbelief.


Romans 9 to 11 makes this clear. This basic error that I see in Richard's case results in his skewed views concerning the woman at Revelation 12, and, indeed, in his discounting of most of the OT.
I discount nothing. And if you want to talk this way, I would really appreciate it if you backed up your statements with evidence, like quotes of statements I've made, and how they demonstrably "discount the OT." Without that, you are grossly misleading people about what I believe, and if you keep that up, I might have to get feisty! :lol:


Richard, I have noticed that you have a tendency to make statements about what a verse means, but you don't support some of your views with Scripture. When you say the woman is faithful Israel, you don't back it up. Where did you get this faithful part from? You use the stock quote from Romans 9:6, but you ignore the entire discourse from which that quote comes.
I get it from the plain meaning of the text.

Are you saying you haven't noticed that "faith" is like ... uhh .. sort of a "central topic" in the Bible, particularly in Paul's writings?

Come on, the Bible says the branches were broken off for unbelief, and the ones that remain are the faithful branches. How could you fail to see something as obvious and fundamental as this? It is the essential message of the Bible!


You fail to read all of Romans 9 to 11, to find what Paul's conclusions are on this matter. My counsel to you is to read the whole three chapters. The great irony is that you say I confuse faithful Israel for fleshly Israel. That is almost the inverse principle with which I have been problematising your own views! I am faulting you for you saying that the church alone is Israel, and the matter is finished. I believe that Paul himself would take you to task on this matter, and, in fact, has done so (Romans 11:25).
I really do look forward to making it to Romans 11 with you. But we need to walk verse by verse because you have made a dozen assumptions about what I believe that are contrary to things that I've explicitly explained multiple times to you. So there is some disconnect here. It seems like you are not willing to stop and look at the actual text of the Bible, like the only way you can avoid conceding my points is to run here and there. I am still waiting for a meaningful explanation of what Paul meant in Rom 9:6:


Romans 9:6 For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
What is your explanation of that verse? How does it relate to the fact that Paul also said the same thing about the Jews?


Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. You see my friend, I have the entire Bible backing me up on this point.

Why have you not dealt directly with these verse that I quote? There are short and simple and easy to understand.


Where does the verse say the woman is faithful Israel? Where does it say that this is the proper understanding of the symbol? All I see is your opinion, Richard. But you fail to acknowledge that fact.
If you would deal with the verses that I present, then you would see that there is more than my "personal opinion" here.


I disagree that the woman is faithful Israel. I believe she is Israel, but there is nothing there to indicate she is faithful Israel. What do you mean by that term anyway? Are you saying the church is faithful Israel? If that's what you mean, you've got some leaks in your argument in trying to say the woman is the church. Just where exactly did the church suddenly become all Israel at the expense of the OT crowd who bore that designation?
I've explained this a hundred times. The Church NEVER BECAME ISRAEL. I have never said the Church became Israel. You got it exactly backwards. Israel is the Church and always has been.

When Christ came and established the New Covenant, only those who had faith could enter it. The unbelieving branches were broken off. And every member of physical Israel that was faithful became Christians. Then Gentiles were grafted in to the Church. Thus Israel became known as the Church.

How many times do I have to repeat this? You still have not responded to my basic assertion. Do you find a fault with my explanation? If so, where and why?


You also state in your funny kind of logic that faithful Israel is the church because she believed God. So what about physical Israel? Are they no more Israel?
They are branches broken off through unbelief, just like the Bible says.

Do you agree with the Bible on this point?


Has God cast them off forever?
Of course not! Absolutely not! They will be grafted in if they no longer abide in unbelief, just like I've said a million times already!!!! Come on man! My fingers are getting repetitive stress disorder form continually typing the same set of characters. Could you please read what I'm writing?


Are they never to be heard from again? Excuse me for having to point this out to you, but have a read of what God says on the issue:

Romans 11, the whole chapter.
Isaiah 41:8,9.
Jeremiah 31:35-37.
1 Samuel 12:22.
Jeremiah 30:10,11.
Jeremiah 46:27,28.
Isaiah 49:13-17.

Of course God never cast them away!
I already stated that myself a million times already.


Read these verses, and understand them in their context.
I have done that and you have never shown any error that I know of in anything I have written on this matter yet.



Christ's role was to raise up the tribes of Israel. That hasn't entirely been fulfilled yet, but it's definitely getting there.
I have never seen a greater misrepresentation of "Christ's role." He is the SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.


Ezekiel 36:21-24.

God saves the tribes of Israel for His own name's sake.

There are stacks of other verses I could muster, but I'm wondering if it's even worth my time.
Stacks of misinterpreted verses most definitely are not worth anyone's time. Just try answering the specific points I have made. You do not have a coherent understanding of the Biblical meaning of Israel. You obsession with physical Israel has clouded your mind. You are not even recognizing fundamental biblical categories like the difference between believers and unbelievers!


So I will refer you back to Romans 11. Basically, if you can't come to grips with what Paul is saying there concerning physical Israel, there's little more that I can offer to help you, brother. :(
That's a cop-out bro. And I mean it. You have not dealt with any of the fundamental texts that I have presented. Instead of writing mile long posts, you need to ENGAGE ME on one point at a time so we can resolve it. It looks to me that you run all over the map because you can not want to admit the plain meaning of text.


I'm interested to know what answers you came up with for the questions that form the HUGE dust-storm I kicked up a week ago.
That's my point exactly, so its worth repeating. Here is what I said:


It seems to me you stirred up that HUGE dust cloud of questions in order to obscure the fact that you can not answer my simple and direct Biblical proofs that Israel is the Church.

I would be happy to answer your questions if you would do me the reciprocal honor of answering the actual arguments I have presented, since I believe they are simple, powerful, Biblical, clear, and conclusive.
I am still waiting for answers to the proofs I have offered. Unfortunately, it seems I may as well have "tossed them to the wind" judging by the response I have gotten.


Quite a storm, too! :p. But seriously, those were promises that belonged to particular peoples for the last days. I'd expect such promises to be pretty much fulfilled by now, these being the last days and all.

Stephen
Your theories about Israel contradict the plain teaching of Scripture. Let me repeat it yet again:


Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Are you going to agree or disagree with Paul?

Richard

Stephen
07-30-2007, 04:48 AM
Hi there, o Feisty One!

We are going to have to work a bit harder to understand one another! That being so, the gate is open and you are welcome to walk upon my grass, the whole field. Meet you over at the other thread.

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen

Richard Amiel McGough
07-30-2007, 08:11 AM
Hi there, o Feisty One!

We are going to have to work a bit harder to understand one another! That being so, the gate is open and you are welcome to walk upon my grass, the whole field. Meet you over at the other thread.

Your brother in Christ,

Stephen
Just a quick note to acknowledge that the conversation is continuing on the "other thread" called "Who are God's Children (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=129)" in the Biblical Studies forum.

I also would like to let everyone know that Stephen wrote a great post, and that we see eye-to-eye on most issues, and have isolated the actual "bone of contention."

Good going Stephen! :thumb:

Richard

gilgal
07-30-2007, 02:33 PM
It's strange that Stephen ( the deacon ) mentioned Israel being the church.

Acts 7
35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
36 He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:


I think there is a literal 144 000, 12 000 from each tribe to be saved from Israel. The question is how do we know who ARE Jews? Well the Hebrew university in Jerusalem was the one to prove that 9 out of ten Jews worldwide that they are not real Jews. One thing is that after 2 000 years we definitely need a genealogical record to prove who is descended from Jacob and who isn't. Also, accepting that they might lose the DNA test some Jews wouldn't want to take the test in the first place.

The importance is this. If they fail to prove themselves to be Jewish, then the land doesn't belong to them. They don't belong in Israel! The Ashkenazi Jews are mostly Khazarians not Israelites. And they rule Israel today. Khazarians are Gentiles. They say they are Jews but are not, but the Synagogue of Satan. Karl Marx was Jewish ( meaning Khazarian ) and was a high priest of Satan. The same with Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Sarkozy ( Hungarian Jew ), Mustafa Kemal Ataturk the first president of Turkey ( called Donmeh meaning convert to Islam but secretly Jewish, born in Salonika where most of the inhabitants were Jewish )...

The reason I brought this subject up is because we're at a stage where we think we're doing God service but we're not. Beware of people like John Hagee who spoke at an AIPAC (http://search.aipac.org/search?q=hagee&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&site=default_collection&client=external&proxystylesheet=external&output=xml_no_dtd) meeting ( American Israel Public Affairs Committee ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDRxmqOn7x4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exdsB5D1r7Y

Hagee even publicly supported Israel when they bombed Lebanon last year. That's favoritism. Lebanon is not entirely Muslim. There are Christians there. And even if there are Muslims not every Muslim views Terrorism as the way to victory.

But What is the Mossad's motto?

By way of deception thou shalt do war

gilgal
12-23-2011, 09:07 PM
Hi Folks!

This is a truly minor point, but one worth sharing nonetheless.

The first time the number 12 appears in the Revelation is at verse 1 of chapter 12. There are 12 uses of 12 preceding this event in the Revelation. These are found at chapter 7, verses 5 to 8. Here, the number being referenced is 12,000 rather than 12. Now the interesting thing is that, in Stephen's 1550 Textus Receptus, all 12 references to the number 12,000 at Revelation 7 are written using Greek gematria to indicate the number 12, i.e. iota - beta, thus iota-beta chiliades for 12,000.
By way of contrast, the verse at Revelation 12:1 uses the Greek word dodeka for the number 12 in the 1550 Textus Receptus.
The word dodeka is used for all subsequent references to the number 12 in the 1550 Stephen's Textus Receptus of Revelation. Curiously, this also includes the 12,000 at Revealtion 21:16, which in this place is written dodeka chiliadon.

Stephen
7:5 ἐκ φυλῆς Ἰούδα ιβ´ χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ φυλῆς Ῥουβὴν ιβ´ χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ φυλῆς Γὰδ ιβ´ χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι

Interesting. So gemetria is used besides for the number 666 where there are 3 letters. 10+2=12

Like wise the 144 000's 144 is written in gemetria form.

7:4 καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων ρμδ´ χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ

100+40+4=144

Richard Amiel McGough
12-24-2011, 02:09 AM
7:5 ἐκ φυλῆς Ἰούδα ιβ´ χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ φυλῆς Ῥουβὴν ιβ´ χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ φυλῆς Γὰδ ιβ´ χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι

Interesting. So gemetria is used besides for the number 666 where there are 3 letters. 10+2=12

Like wise the 144 000's 144 is written in gemetria form.

7:4 καὶ ἤκουσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἐσφραγισμένων ρμδ´ χιλιάδες ἐσφραγισμένοι ἐκ πάσης φυλῆς υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ

100+40+4=144
Very interesting! Which manuscript did you find these number/letters in? Some mss spell them out in words, others use gematria.

Charisma
12-24-2011, 07:30 AM
Hi gilgal, Richard and Stephen,

Just a note in passing to show scripture for gilgal's thought that Caleb was a Gentile.

Numbers 13:6 Of the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh


Originally posted by Richard,
The Bible says that Israel is the Church. The unbelieving natural sons of Jacob (aka Israel) were broken off because of unbelief. The believing Gentiles were grafted into the Vine (Christ) with the believing remnant of Israel. The branches that have been broken off though unbelief can be grafted back in if they do not remain in unbelief.I've read the whole of your post, Richard, in which you said this, (#14) and I agree. I would like to try to add some clarification from scripture, because phrases like 'faithful remnant' are open to misunderstanding.

The 'faithful remnant' are those of Israel who were still watching for the Messiah, when John the Baptist, said, 'Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world', who when Jesus' ministry then began, followed Him. Yet, we have many indications that not all followers accepted all His teachings. They were willing to repent, and to dwell in the nearness of the kingdom of heaven for a season, but some turned back, and even the disciples found they could not keep up, after Jesus was arrested. Even His blood-related followers, in their natural strength, were sinners. This is the conclusion of Paul in Romans 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 10 and 11. Apart from Paul, Jesus Himself, through His interaction with people and what He said to them (such as Simon the leper) usually showed a contrast between those who thought they were okay, and those who knew they were not, or, those who pleased God and those who failed to please Him.

This means that even every one of Jesus' kinsmen who believed in Him, and every circumcised Jew (or whatever racial origin), were still cut off from the spiritual life which through His death He was able to make available to them. This is the first thing Paul mourns in Romans 9: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption,. This separation between Jesus and His natural kinsmen is revealed to Daniel, 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: We see that Jesus was cut off on behalf of them all including those who recognised Him when He came, who followed Him, and who were present in the upper room on the day of Pentecost.

1 Corinthians 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.... 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Obviously, there were/are many natural Israelites and circumcised Jews in the harvest after Christ the firstfruits.

Romans 11:16 For if the firstfruit holy, the lump [is] also [holy]: and if the root [be] holy, so [are] the branches. On the matter of Christ's holiness: Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, [B]according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

This is where Romans 6 begins to make sense, in the light of the thesis Paul makes in the early chapters to conclude all men under sin: v2 '... How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

When Jesus was baptised by John, 'to fulfil all righteousness', He was pre-figuring His death for sin, even though He had nothing to repent from. Until we, in our hearts, identify ourselves with His death, the Spirit of holiness, which confirms our spiritual resurrection, cannot dwell in us.

Romans 8:15b but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
This is 'the adoption', to which Paul referred in Romans 9:4.


There is a whole other discussion to be had (by some) about the relationship which OT saints will have with God after 'the resurrection', which I believe is clarified by the writer to the Hebrews, Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; 2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house. 3 For this [man] was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. 4 For every house is builded by some [man]; but he that built all things [is] God. 5 And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; 6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Thus, 'the church in the wilderness' refers to those who were faithful under the Old Covenant, while those who are faithful under the New Covenant, fit in the Church Jesus said He was going to build upon Himself: Matthew 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Did the gates of hell prevailed against 'the church in the wilderness'? There seems to be a big distinction between those of outward circumcision, and those of circumcision of the heart.

1 Corinthians 3:9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, [ye are] God's building. 10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: 3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious. 4 To whom coming, [as unto] a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, [and] precious, 5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: 10 Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 11 Dearly beloved, I beseech [you] as strangers and pilgrims,

By the time Peter was writing this, both he and Paul seemed to be on the same page - that believing Gentiles were part of the commonwealth of Israel, and unbelieving Jews/Israelites were in the same spiritual category, as unbelieving Gentiles.

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

Leviticus 26:41 And [that] I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity:

Deuteronomy 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Deuteronomy 30:6 And the LORD thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Isaiah 59:20 And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the [day] following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Luke 9:30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem... 53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

Tyndale's New Testament
Romans 11:25 I would not that this secret should be hid from you my brethren (lest ye should be wise in your own conceits) that partly blindness is happened in Israel, until the fullness of the gentiles be come in. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved.

As it is written: There shall come out of Sion he that doth deliver, and shall turn away the ungodliness of Jacob. Note how Paul puts the emphasis on what Christ has done, rather than Isaiah's emphasis on the person turning from ungodliness. Of course, both are true - repentance is required for both. In Isaiah's day, there was no 'end' to sin and folk were held accountable for their actions through their keeping of the Law. That was their active repentance, until John brought in baptism for Jews. Hitherto, only Gentiles becoming proselytes, had been baptised.

As we all know, uncircumcised Gentiles did not begin to be added to the church until Peter preached to Cornelius' household (Acts 10), by which time Paul had been saved through Anaias ministry, who initially objected to meeting Paul (chief Jewish persecuter of the Church) Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, [even] Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Acts 13:42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. 43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. 44 And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. 45 But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. 46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

This was not the end of Paul's ministry to those of Israel. He continued to evangelise them, as well as Gentiles.

gilgal
12-24-2011, 03:00 PM
Very interesting! Which manuscript did you find these number/letters in? Some mss spell them out in words, others use gematria.
The Greek Textus Receptus
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=1&t=KJV#conc/5

Whereas the GNT Morph spells out the numbers.

Richard Amiel McGough
12-24-2011, 03:37 PM
The Greek Textus Receptus
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=7&v=1&t=KJV#conc/5

Whereas the GNT Morph spells out the numbers.
Oh yeah, of course. I've got those two versions in my database: TR Rev 7:5 (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=66&cnum=7&vnum=5&SourceTxt=SCR&getverse=Go) (gematria used) vs. NA27 Rev 7:5 (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=66&cnum=7&vnum=5&SourceTxt=NA27&getverse=Go) (number words used)

So which do you think was the "original?"

gilgal
12-25-2011, 04:32 AM
Oh yeah, of course. I've got those two versions in my database: TR Rev 7:5 (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=66&cnum=7&vnum=5&SourceTxt=SCR&getverse=Go) (gematria used) vs. NA27 Rev 7:5 (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.asp?bnum=66&cnum=7&vnum=5&SourceTxt=NA27&getverse=Go) (number words used)

So which do you think was the "original?"
That's a good question. I haven't made any opinion on it. I always thought that the TR is the original or the copy of the original.

Charisma
12-25-2011, 04:38 AM
Happy Christmas everyone! :pray:


Hi gilgal,


The importance is this. If they fail to prove themselves to be Jewish, then the land doesn't belong to them.All that information about who might naturally of Israel, goes completely against the spirit of the law which we see in Deuteronomy. Even before Sinai, God states that as long as a slave, or a 'stranger' in their household, has been circumcised, they are free to partake of the Passover meal.

There are several places in the Bible where God states that all the earth is His. He specifically says that the land which Israel now seeks to possess is never to be sold. It cannot be bought. Then, there is the matter of the jubilees, when everyone who had been in financial trouble and having to work of his debt, should have been free to return to his portion of the land which he had inherited it.

The matter of inheritance - and how God gives Himself as an inheritance to the Levites - speaks strongly of the role of the firstborn becoming priest in his own household. Levi was chosen by God as an offering to Himself instead of the firstborn in every family. As Jesus was the firstborn Son of God, in whom we receive a double portion of the Holy Spirit (as co-heirs with Him) I see 'the land' fading into insignificance in the New Covenant. There is nowhere in the New Testament that 'the land' (referring to that portion given to Abraham) which any one of the writers mentions. As they began to receive their inheritance in God while the Romans were in occupation, they easily took on the label of 'strangers and pilgrims' in this world. See Hebrews 11 and 1 Peter 2.

Furthermore, at Sinai, in Exodus 19:5, God is bargaining with them, and promises to make them a kingdom of priests 'IF' the obey His voice. Then He said 'for all the earth is mine'. This is in keeping with Paul's interpretation of what God had said to Abraham - not only that the gospel had been preached to him, but Romans 4:13, that he should be 'heir of the world'. This leads to a picture of the whole world being 'Israel' - that over which God has prevailed (Adam having failed in his commission as a steward, and having had to be baled out by God) - which would make plenty of room for everyone who has a right to dwell in His presence.

What we see today is an unholy scramble by unbelievers, to take by force a 'possession' which according to the Biblical record, began to slip away from them in Solomon's day. God didn't promise the land to idolaters.

In fact, Paul says this about 'the blessing of Abraham' Galatians 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Note Paul's use of the word 'we'. Evidently he is including Gentile believers in Israel (as he does in Ephesians 2). Christ's work on the cross removed the outward separation between people groups, so that God's word to Abraham 'in thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed' really did begin to come true - to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile - now having access to the Father by one Spirit.

God has never cast Israel off. They have always been provided for, even when they were scattered throughout the nations, it was to bring God's name to the Gentiles (there's a verse for that somewhere) and, Micah 5:7 And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.

gilgal
12-26-2011, 10:59 AM
Nahum is somehow related to Exodus 34. Mountains are both mentioned but can't narrow down to any phrase or group of words in common.

Keep feast(s)

Exodus 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Exodus 34:18 The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt.
Nahum 1:15 Behold upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! O Judah, keep thy solemn feasts, perform thy vows: for the wicked shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.

earth swallowing the water:
2 Kings 3:20 KJV - And it came to pass in the morning, when the meat offering was offered, that, behold, there came water by the way of Edom, and the country was filled with water.
Revelation 12:16 KJV - And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.

Some say that the endtime Christians or Israelites will flee to Edom for protection.

Back to Nahum and Exodus 34:
Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:
Nahum 1:2 God [is] jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and [is] furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth [wrath] for his enemies.

Exodus 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].
Nahum 1:3 The LORD [is] slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit [the wicked]: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds [are] the dust of his feet.

Also look at Exodus 34 and 2 Kings:
Exodus 34:7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear [the guilty]; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth [generation].
2 Kings 10:30 And the LORD said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing [that which is] right in mine eyes, [and] hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that [was] in mine heart, thy children of the fourth [generation] shall sit on the throne of Israel.
2 Kings 15:12 This [was] the word of the LORD which he spake unto Jehu, saying, Thy sons shall sit on the throne of Israel unto the fourth [generation]. And so it came to pass.

Both 2Kings and Nahum talk about the city filled with blood:
2Kings is Jerusalem in Manasseh's time which is when God promised a captivity even when Manasseh repented and was forgiven.
Nahum is Nineveh as God through Nahum promised it would come.