Revelation

155 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)




You want to re-phrase that? I think I have a good idea what your talking about but I want to make sure your saying what I think you mean rather than what it looks like you said.


Sure, maybe I didn't word it right. Jesus is in the geneology of David, and He was of the seed of the woman, born of a virgin. Because He came from the line of David He is entitled, as a man, to the right to sit on the throne of Israel. The seed of David was cursed with JeConiah though, but because Jesus came from the seed of the woman, not the seed of any man, He doesn't bear the curse that came from JeConiah.

That make better sense? Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Login or register for removal of this advertisement.

Posted (edited)


Sure, maybe I didn't word it right. Jesus is in the geneology of David, and He was of the seed of the woman, born of a virgin. Because He came from the line of David He is entitled, as a man, to the right to sit on the throne of Israel. The seed of David was cursed with JeConiah though, but because Jesus came from the seed of the woman, not the seed of any man, He doesn't bear the curse that came from JeConiah.

That make better sense?


Ah ok, that is what I thought it sounded like you were saying, but I thought you meant what I am about to say.

The "seed of the man" vs. "seed of the woman" in and of itself makes no difference in this particular area. A descendant of JeConiah is a descendant of JeConiah one way or the other. However, the "seed of David" was not cursed with JeConiah, the curse was that none of JeConiah's decedents were ever going to sit on Davids throne. When you look at the NT genealogies Joseph's line was the royal line and came through JeConiah, BUT Mary's line was not the royal line and did not go through JeConiah. Their genealogies split after David and go through different sons. Mary's line has no curse attached to it. This OT prophecy about JeConiah had to be true.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Since Jesus is going to reign on the throne of David one day, Mary, as his physical mother, could not be of the seed of JeConiah. Christ received the "legal" right to reign from being the "legal" son of Joseph, but bypassed the prophecy that none of JeConiahs descendants would sit on the throne of David by not being the physical son of Joseph and therefore not being a descendant of JeConiah. Edited by Seth-Doty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Interesting discourse, chaps. :icon_mrgreen:
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted




Ah ok, that is what I thought it sounded like you were saying, but I thought you meant what I am about to say.

The "seed of the man" vs. "seed of the woman" in and of itself makes no difference in this particular area. A descendant of JeConiah is a descendant of JeConiah one way or the other. However, the "seed of David" was not cursed with JeConiah, the curse was that none of JeConiah's decedents were ever going to sit on Davids throne. When you look at the NT genealogies Joseph's line was the royal line and came through JeConiah, BUT Mary's line was not the royal line and did not go through JeConiah. Their genealogies split after David and go through different sons. Mary's line has no curse attached to it. This OT prophecy about JeConiah had to be true.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

Since Jesus is going to reign on the throne of David one day, Mary, as his physical mother, could not be of the seed of JeConiah. Christ received the "legal" right to reign from being the "legal" son of Joseph, but bypassed the prophecy that none of JeConiahs descendants would sit on the throne of David by not being the physical son of Joseph and therefore not being a descendant of JeConiah.


:amen::amen::amen: :amen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Rick:
There are two Israels in Romans.

Romans 9:6, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:"

One is ethnic and the other is spiritual. We're spiritual Israel, lost Jews are ethnic.

Agreed, except, of course that saved Jews are also spiritual Israel together with saved Gentiles.


You stopped short of a very important verse:

Romans 11:25, "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Now, that can't be talking about spiritual Israel. We're not blinded by God for a specific time because we rejected the Gospel. It's ethnic Israel that is blinded for a certain amount of time.

Agreed. Paul is spending much of Romans explaining that true Jews & true Israel have faith in Christ, & are circumcised in heart, as are believing Gentiles.

Very next verse...

Romans 11:26, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

Who comprise all Israel? Paul has been using the olive tree analogy for believing, spiritual Israel, with believing Gentiles & Jews grafted together into the one tree.

Note that Paul writes "and so..." NOT "and then." Using his analogy, all Israel is saved by grafting & regrafting. The deliverer is Jesus, who has completed that saving work. Paul is quoting Isaiah, not making a fresh prophecy.

"All Israel" comprises believing Jews & Gentiles, both before & after AD 70, certainly many more Jews than the 7,000 reserved to the LORD in Elijah's day. Sadly their national rejection of Jesus occasioned Paul's comments throughout Romans.


Still talking about the same Israel, the ethnic one that is blinded right now until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. THAT Israel will be saved one day. What follows next is THEIR covenant:

"And so" indicates that Paul isn't prophesying, but explaining. Down the ages, from Abraham to the last repented sinner, all Israel is being saved.

Romans 11:27, "For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins."

When all of national Israel is saved is when all of their sins are taken away and the New Covenant comes in. If you think this verse is talking about spiritual Israel, you and me, read the very next verse:

Romans 11:28, "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes."

You and I, spiritual Israel, are not enemies of the gospel - but ethnic Israel in her current state is. Israel in her current state is partially blinded as well, but the nation of Israel will one day be saved and have all her sins taken away.

The NC came in at Calvary. That's why we eat the Lord's supper.

1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

The same Gk word is used for both "testament" & "covenant." There may now be legal differences, but the words in Scripture are interchangeable. Notice for e.g.

Exd 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

2Cr 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.

Exd 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Hbr 9:20 Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.




Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ian,

If Romans 11:25-28 is talking about spiritual Israel, then you and I are enemies of the gospel and partially blinded spiritually. Of course it's talking about national Israel being saved one day, that's why the contrast is given in verse 28 with "...THEY are enemies for YOUR sakes..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


Ian,

If Romans 11:25-28 is talking about spiritual Israel, then you and I are enemies of the gospel and partially blinded spiritually. Of course it's talking about national Israel being saved one day, that's why the contrast is given in verse 28 with "...THEY are enemies for YOUR sakes..."

Are the Jews (national Israel) our enemies? The generation that rejected Jesus & the Apostles were enemies in the first century. Paul writes in the present tense. He states Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. There is not an essential enmity between Jew & Christian, though there certainly was then. Paul had previously written:

1Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

The wrath of God came upon them to the uttermost. Rev 15:1 ¶ And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.

Since AD 70 we don't know how many Jews have been converted, but when they are, they are cut off from their family & lose their ethnic identity. They become one people with us, as Paul wrote, quoting Lev. 26: 2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The Jews are no more our enemies than any other group of unbelievers. They need the Gospel, & when they believe, they will be grafted back in.

What is the fulness of the Gentiles ? Could it be when there is no longer a focus on Jerusalem, & Christians are no longer a Jewish sect? Succeeding generations of Jews are NOT guilty of condemning Jesus, only of unbelief. And what do we then understand by the fulness of Israel? Surely the church is now all Israel, & all Israel will be saved - Jew & Gentile as one people of God in Christ. Edited by Covenanter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Since AD 70 we don't know how many Jews have been converted, but when they are, they are cut off from their family & lose their ethnic identity


That is true. A Jewish Christian I knew, when he was converted, his family held a funeral for him, considering him dead. He went to be with the Lord about 2 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


Anything else you wanted to go over about Revelation, Nathaniel?


Hmm well, for now who are the woman and child in Re 12?
There are some others but I want to think over them a little longer before I post them though, hopefully that is alright. I have been reading the board often. Thank you all for your help! :) Edited by Nathaniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted



Are the Jews (national Israel) our enemies? The generation that rejected Jesus & the Apostles were enemies in the first century. Paul writes in the present tense. He states Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. There is not an essential enmity between Jew & Christian, though there certainly was then. Paul had previously written:

1Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

The wrath of God came upon them to the uttermost. Rev 15:1 ¶ And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is filled up the wrath of God.


Surely you’re not trying to equate I Thess. 2:15 to Rev. 15:1, are you? What follows Revelation 15:1 is boils for those who have the mark, all sea life killed and the sea being turned to blood, the sun scorching men with fire, darkness that inflicts pain, and the Euphrates River drying up. Those things haven't happened yet.

The Jewish people have never been our enemies, but they are enemies of the Gospel. It is the same Israel that is partially blinded (but only until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in), is an enemy of the gospel (but still beloved by the Father), that will (future tense) have their sins taken away; this Israel is the Israel that God says "All Israel shall be saved."

God was done dealing with the Jews as a nation by the end of Acts. When He's done dealing with the Gentiles, is when the times of the Gentiles will be complete and He'll begin dealing with the Jew in the time of Jacob's trouble. That is when all those things that follow Revelation 15:1 begin to come to pass; the things that there are no biblical or historical evidence that they ever happened in all of history let alone 70 A.D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)




Hmm well, for now who are the woman and child in Re 12?
There are some others but I want to think over them a little longer before I post them though, hopefully that is alright. I have been reading the board often. Thank you all for your help! :)



It's the nation of Israel, the Manchild is Christ: He's the only one destined to rule the world with a rod of Iron. I think Covenanter would actually agree with me on that one, to some extent. :) Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted





It's the nation of Israel, the Manchild is Christ: He's the only one destined to rule the world with a rod of Iron. I think Covenanter would actually agree with me on that one, to some extent. :)


I wouldn't, a woman in the book of Revelation is the church. The bride for instance is the true church, the harleot is the false church, headed by Rome.

After Constantine was raised to power, the true church went into the wilderness and the false church, the harlot rose to power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted




I wouldn't, a woman in the book of Revelation is the church. The bride for instance is the true church, the harleot is the false church, headed by Rome.

After Constantine was raised to power, the true church went into the wilderness and the false church, the harlot rose to power.


I can see where you get that, and it's certainly a better interpretation than saying she's Mary. The twelve stars under her feet and resembling Joseph's dream leans more towards Israel, to me. The big kicker is that the woman brings forth Christ, the Manchild. The church did not bring forth Christ, but Israel did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted



It's the nation of Israel, the Manchild is Christ: He's the only one destined to rule the world with a rod of Iron. I think Covenanter would actually agree with me on that one, to some extent. :)


There has been a discussion earlier about the line of David, to Mary, to avoid the curse on Jeconiah.

The first Gospel was spoken to Satan stating Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

Then the promise came to Ahaz: Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker [is] thine husband; ...

The seed is Christ, & the mother crowned with stars is faithful Israel bringing forth the promised seed. I don't consider the church to be the woman in 12:1, but as the vision progresses, & the woman is persecuted, she represents the church, believing Israel , persecuted by Satan & his angels, & unbelieving Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Where have I been the last seven years? I never knew that Preterist Hank Hanagraph (I used to love listening to him on the radio) wrote a novel as a counter to LaHaye's Left Behind series. Ha! And it was even done by the same publisher! You may want to check it out.

Linky

Edited by Rick Schworer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


Where have I been the last seven years? I never knew that Preterist Hank Hanagraph (I used to love listening to him on the radio) wrote a novel as a counter to LaHaye's Left Behind series. Ha! And it was even done by the same publisher! You may want to check it out.

Linky

I've never heard of it either - thanks for the link - I hope it sells well, & many will be encouraged as they read, & reread Revelation with a fresh understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)





It's the nation of Israel, the Manchild is Christ: He's the only one destined to rule the world with a rod of Iron. I think Covenanter would actually agree with me on that one, to some extent. :)


I believe the "man child" is the saved remnant (144,0000) during the tribulation raptured out perhaps midway. They too shall rule with a rod of iron.

Isaiah 66:7,8:

[7] Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
[8] Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

Rev. 2:26,27:

[26] And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
[27] And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.

Jesus Christ was never in danger of being gobbled up by the red dragon. The whole passage is in the context of the Great Tribulation not the first coming of Christ. Edited by Wilchbla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


Where have I been the last seven years? I never knew that Preterist Hank Hanagraph (I used to love listening to him on the radio) wrote a novel as a counter to LaHaye's Left Behind series. Ha! And it was even done by the same publisher! You may want to check it out.

Linky

Thanks - I've looked at the available pages, & recommend them as a counter to the Tim & Jerry fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

In looking into various aspects of this I found it interesting that C. H. Spurgeon stood against Dispensationalist teachings. At one point Spurgeon commented that Darby's writings were "too mystical" and that if Darby were to "write in plain English his readers would probably discover that there is nothing very valuable in his remarks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So is everyone except me now anti dispensational, amill, partial preterists? I just want to know the company I am in. It seems that is the direction the covenant followers are taking people. I use to be a fan of Hank. I am no longer after hearing the hateful things he has said about people with my views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


So is everyone except me now anti dispensational, amill, partial preterists?


Not exactly. :coolsmiley: Sometimes people who totally appose his positions in many areas because they find them ill founded and unbiblical don't bother to argue with him much anyway since that ground has been covered long ago in other threads with no effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted


So is everyone except me now anti dispensational, amill, partial preterists? I just want to know the company I am in. It seems that is the direction the covenant followers are taking people. I use to be a fan of Hank. I am no longer after hearing the hateful things he has said about people with my views.

Have you a link to the "hateful things he has said about people with my [your] views?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


So is everyone except me now anti dispensational, amill, partial preterists? I just want to know the company I am in. It seems that is the direction the covenant followers are taking people. I use to be a fan of Hank. I am no longer after hearing the hateful things he has said about people with my views.


Seems like they have pretty much taken over in this forum. I've seen this on other boards. First you tolerate them because you want a "lively debate" or because they are "nice folks who love Jesus just like you" and you don't want to be harsh or "unchristian" then the next thing you know it they run the board and you find yourself being rebuke on a board that holds the same doctrinial statement as you do. Happens in churches and happens in bible forums. Nothing new under the sun. Edited by Wilchbla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted




Seems like they have pretty much taken over in this forum. I've seen this on other boards. First you tolerate them because you want a "lively debate" or because they are "nice folks who love Jesus just like you" and you don't want to be harsh or "unchristian" then the next thing you know it they run the board and you find yourself being rebuke on a board that holds the same doctrinial statement as you do. Happens in churches and happens in bible forums. Nothing new under the sun.

As far as I can see, I am the only amil & the only preterist here, though others have expressed objections to dispensationalism. The discussion has been wide ranging & Biblical. You will be better equipped to argue your understanding of Scripture as you participate in the discussion. No-one is saying "hateful things" on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Anything else, Nathaniel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 21 Guests (See full list)