Timothy
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Pramod,
The “preparation” for the disciples in Christ’s Kingdom was accomplished by His completing their redemption. It included His crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and presenting His own blood in the Temple in heaven to make atonement (Heb. 9:12; Heb. 13:12). Provision for complete forgiveness was not completed for anyone until Jesus’ blood was actually presented to God in the Temple in heaven (Hebrews 7 – 10). Hebrews portrays Jesus as both the blood sacrifice AND the High Priest who carried the blood into the presence of God in the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:22-28). This is also why immediately after His resurrection Jesus told Mary “do not touch Me, I have not yet ascended to my Father …” yet a week later He told Thomas to touch Him to see that He was flesh and bone. Jesus ascended and descended after His resurrection to appear to specific people, but ascended for the last time as recorded in Acts 1.
All of this is what Jesus had to do to “prepare a place” for the disciples and all of the redeemed in His Kingdom Temple on earth. Jesus is not building Christian condos in heaven, nor is He working on a city in heaven that will descend to earth. He is seated at the Father’s right hand.
Pramod,
I have never taught that John 14:2-3 refers to heaven or the Temple in heaven. I have taught that it refers to the Kingdom Temple on earth. Jesus Himself referred to the Temple in Jerusalem as “My Father’s House” in John 2:16, (and in Luke 2:49 in many translations). The “House of the LORD” throughout the Old Testament is always the Temple on earth, whether referring to Solomon’s Temple, the restored Temple under Cyrus, or the Kingdom Temple in Ezekiel 40-48.
There are several OT prophecies, particularly in Isaiah, which describe the restoration of Jerusalem in the Kingdom, including the rebuilding of her walls by humans, and the wealth of the nations being brought to beautify her (Isa. 60 is one such passage).
In my opinion, what is described in Rev. 21-22 regarding the New Jerusalem is allegory, including its descent from heaven which indicates that God causes her restoration not man.
There is another possibility, however, which was held by some of the early Fathers, such as Irenaeus. His view was that Jerusalem will be restored as per Isaiah, Ezekial, Zechariah, etc., when Christ returns, but will be completely changed or replaced after the millennium by a city which descends from heaven for the eternal state. IMO, however, the parallel language between Rev. 21-22 & the prophets’ description of restored Jerusalem argues against Irenaeus’ view (which is also the view held by many premillennialists).
Anders,
I have tried to falsify my interpretation of the 2300 days and have not been able to do so due to the unknown variables. However, the same variables also make it impossible to prove. So, IMO, it remains a reasonable theory. Its value and weight comes from the fact that it allows certain other passages (esp. Dan. 8 & 11) to be reconciled which have seemed to contain contradictory information (passages that seem to speak of Antiochus and Antichrist as the same person without distinction within the same context).
Anders, what is more important to that question is the intercalation of a 13th month. The calculation of 2300 days cannot allow for any intercalation in either period. So, there is no way to know for certain. The likelihood of an intercalary month being assigned by the priesthood is probably slim, since the priesthood had in part been corrupted by Greek paganism, and the remaining faithful priests were fighting a war led by Judah Maccabee. The claim in the book of Maccabees and in Josephus is that the Temple was cleansed on the same day of the same month 3 years after it was defiled. But how was this reckoned? Was it inclusive or exclusive reckoning?
Regarding the 42 months of Antichrist’s reign, 42 months does not necessarily have to be exactly 1239 24-hour days, given the fact that the Jews typically counted any part of a whole as a whole. So, a period of say 1235 days would still be described as “42 months.”
In the description of Noah’s flood, the text says that the waters prevailed 150 days, but also describes this as 5 months. Does 5 months equal exactly 150 days? No, 5 months equals 147.5 days.
Also, the 29.5 day lunar month you are using is an average over many hundreds of years. It is not proper to suppose that a short period of time, say 3 years, MUST consist of 36 months of 29.5 days. There were times in the past when the average lunar month over a short period of time (say a few years) averaged significantly less than 29.5 and times when it averaged more than 29.5. But as far as we can tell now, it is never LESS than 29 days and never MORE than 30 days. However, in times past there were periods when there were more 29-day months in a year than 30-day months. This difference, and the need for an average, is of course due to the moon’s elliptical orbit and the fact that its orbital plane is not the same as the earth’s orbital plane. That average works reasonably well when we are speaking of very long periods of time. But it is not accurate for short periods of time. So yes, it is well within the realm of possibility that the 3 years to the day described by Maccabees and Josephus could have been a few days less than 1,062 days (36×29.5).
In the article I linked in a previous post, the following was stated:
“In the period from 1600 to 2600, an average lunar month lasts 29.530575 days or 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 2 seconds. The shortest lunar month ended July 17, 1708 and lasted 29.271819 days (29 days, 6 hours, 31 minutes, and 25 seconds), while the longest was the one that ended on January 14, 1611 and lasted 29.832568 days (29 days, 19 hours, 58 minutes, and 54 seconds).”
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/lunar-month.html
At various times, using the observation method which only allows for WHOLE days, there can be consecutive months with 29 days. If that was to occur twice within the three year period in question in the Maccabean times, that would account for the discrepancy.
Anders,
While the following Britanica article does not specifically address the Jewish practice, …
https://www.britannica.com/science/calendar/Time-determination-by-stars-Sun-and-Moon
… it is a well-known fact that many ancient civilizations used a luni-solar calendar and calculated the months by observing the new moon. These ancient civilizations understood that a lunar month was 29 or 30 days in length, and they referred to a 29-day month as “hallow” and a 30-day month as “full.” That these are the terms used is sufficient evidence IMO that 29-day or 30-day months were always reckoned.I really do not understand why you think this question is “of crucial importance” regarding future prophecy. Even though I claim that we should interpret prophetic calendrical statements using the ancient Jewish method, that does not affect how we understand the events of prophecy unfolding in the end-times. IF the ancient Jews occasionally had a longer month because weather did not allow the observance of the new moon, this would be corrected the following month. There is a continuous synchronization of the calendrical months with the lunar cycle, so that any error would be corrected and the calendar would remain on track.
As far as yet unfulfilled prophecy, assuming that it is given using the ancient observational method (rather than NASA tables), it should be understood according to the ancient common method of 29-day “hallow” months, and 30-day “full” months. That there apparently was no name for a month longer than 30 days or shorter then 29 days makes this a moot point IMO. For example, the 42 months in Rev. 13:5 should be understood as either 29 or 30 days, unless of course one interprets the Greek word translated “months” as “moons.” In that case, it would mean 42 new moons which could be anywhere from 1210 to 1239 days.
Maybe if you could give me an example of how this would make a difference with a specific prophecy I could better address the issue.
Brian,
Exegesis of Scripture is my field of study. Philosophy is not my area of expertise. I try to avoid theoretical speculation about God that is not based on statements of Scripture. God has chosen to reveal Himself to us using human language and terminology of procreation, familial relationships, things we are familiar with by experience, and the progress of time. He also sometimes uses allegories and metaphors in order to convey certain concepts by means of comparison. Beyond those things, and our observation of His creation, He has not revealed Himself to us. Scripture only indicates a “beginning” which was “Day one” of creation week and places the begetting of the Son as being “the beginning” and “the beginning of the creation of God.” Time, as we understand it from experience and as revealed in Scripture begins with an act of begetting. Everything else that has occurred, is occurring, or will occur, that is all events and processes, whether creation or the continued movement of the heavenly bodies, every process and event, is measured by time (which also requires sequence). Beyond those basic observations, I am not willing to speculate. I am content to confine my understanding of God and the message of the Bible to things that I can point to in the Scriptures. I then attempt to explain things in Scripture based on what Scripture reveals alone.
I do not know what saying that “time” is an aspect of God actually means and all that implies. It sounds like philosophical mumbo-jumbo to me, the kind of things that Paul warned Timothy to avoid (1 Tim. 6:20-21). I know of Scripture that says things like “God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (obviously metaphor) but I do not know of any Scripture that says “God is time” or implies such a thing.
As far as how to determine a distinction between the words of the Father or the Son, it seems to me that Jesus answered that question in person. Did He not say that the words He spoke were those that the Father told Him to say? (John 14:24). So the Father is the source of all messages delivered from the Son, whether in OT times or in NT times. Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” This is not one person, but united in purpose to the extend that there is no division of will. The Son was the Agent of the Father to mankind both before His human birth and afterward. But God also now speaks Himself via the “Spirit/Breath.” Yet Scripture also blurs the distinction between the Spirit/Breath of God and the Spirit/Breath of Christ. Rom. 8:9-11 is a perfect example of this.
It is clear from 1 Cor. 1-2 that the Son was intentionally concealed in mystery in the OT Scriptures for a reason. This “mystery” was only known by new revelation to the Apostles. That means a clear distinction in the OT was something that may not be discernable merely by applying grammatical rules or exegetical principles. It is clear that the manner in which this mystery was concealed involved departing from the norms of grammar. Peter himself actually acknowledged this in explanation of Psalm 16 in his sermon in Acts 2. That prophecy of Jesus’ resurrection was written in the past tense. So also was prophecy of Jesus crucifixion in Psalm 22 & Isa. 53. So, were the words of David or Isaiah wrong by placing these things in the past tense? Or, as Peter declared in 1 Pet. 1:11, was “the Spirit/Breath of Christ” speaking in those passages so that they are the words of the Son and not David or Isaiah?
If you are looking for a hard and fast “rule” in order to distinguish the words of the Father from the words of the Son you won’t find any such rule simply because that very thing was being concealed in order to hide the “mystery of God” from Israel.
As far as how much of the mind and plan of God the Son was privy to at any point, I think it is best to understand the Father – Son relationship in the same way we understand a human father – son relationship. That is one of instruction, training, allowing the son to learn things by interaction with humanity, and revealing more advanced things progressively.
I see Wisdom’s role in creation (Prov. 8) as being God’s apprentice. I see this apprenticeship as continuing in all of the missions He was sent on as the Messenger of the LORD, enacting the covenants, dealing with rebellious Israel in the wilderness, etc. The Son was aware of God’s promise to Him of the inheritance of the whole earth and all nations on the very first day, when He was “begotten.” So as He worked beside His Father for those six days, He knew He was fashioning His own inheritance. Exactly HOW everything would play out, He learned progressively IMO as He matured. Of course, since He was the one who affirmed the covenants, He knew and understood them at the time He delivered them.
I see all of history as summed up in the parable in Matt. 22:2-14. From the very beginning, all of history has been about the King of the Universe orchestrating and preparing both a wedding and inheritance for His Son. This can be found all throughout the prophets, as the Son was betrothed to a people via the Mosaic Covenant, but ended up divorcing her because of her unfaithfulness. After punishing her severely, He is now betrothed to her again, and the wedding will be consummated in the resurrection.
Bottom line is this: IMO, the Son was God’s apprentice in creating His own inheritance. He was, is, and will be God’s apprentice in working out the entire plan of God for this creation and all mankind. And we ought to think of the Son as always God’s apprentice, and learning by instruction and doing, just like all sons do who have a good father who is training them to be a mature man. In the case of God’s Son, He has been in training for His final great work, reigning as “God” in the Kingdom for a millennium (Psalm 45). At the end of that period, the Son will complete His mission of reconciling everything back to God (Eph. 1:9-12; Col. 1:20).
Anders,
“Touching” can only be observational from a particular vantage point since the star Regulus is at a much greater distance from us than the planet Venus. So everything is merely an illusion based on location at a particular point in time. IMO, any interpretations of the biblical calendar and prophetic signs MUST be from using the methods that were in place at the time the Scriptures were written. They cannot be made using NASA data or other such scientific methods. The reason is that those methods are not observational from the one place on earth where God has placed His name, Jerusalem, and they are not based on human eyesight without magnification.
There are resources online for the information regarding the calculating of the lunar month on the Jewish calendar, being always either 29 or 30 days, for example:
https://www.jewfaq.org/jewish-calendarThe thing you have to remember is that the ancients kept very detailed observational records of the movements of the heavenly bodies over very long periods of time (lifetimes). They understood the patterns and cycles, and especially the limits of those cycles. So while there is some slight variation in them due to elliptical orbits, there are known limits to those variations. Observationally, (as far as we know) there has never been a lunar month more than 30 days or less than 29 days. So even with a return to the observational method, this fact will not allow for supposing that a lunar month might be 28 or 31 days unless there is observed a significant disruption of the normal cycles.
“In the period from 1600 to 2600, an average lunar month lasts 29.530575 days or 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, and 2 seconds. The shortest lunar month ended July 17, 1708 and lasted 29.271819 days (29 days, 6 hours, 31 minutes, and 25 seconds), while the longest was the one that ended on January 14, 1611 and lasted 29.832568 days (29 days, 19 hours, 58 minutes, and 54 seconds). The exact length varies slightly, due to the elliptical shape of the Moon’s orbit.”
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/lunar-month.html
We also know that in the last days there will be “signs in the sun, moon, and stars.” No astronomy program can predict things like the sun standing still in Joshua’s day, or any supernatural manifestations in the heavenly bodies or dramatic changes to the regular patterns. So all of these things presuppose that astronomical observations follow known mathematical formulas without disruptions. Given that the Bible states plainly that the heavenly bodies will be disrupted, possibly affecting the patterns of movement, it is impossible to say with certainty that something will occur on a particular date and time on our calendar. It is, however, possible to state that it will occur on a particular biblical feast day IF we use the ancient observational method which would not be disrupted by such changes in patterns. Monthly observation of the new moons, and observations of the agricultural cycles (as the ancient Jews did to synchronize the lunar and solar cycles), are not affected by supernatural events because the calendar is synchronized to the heavenly bodies every month and every year.
For example, if we know that Christ’s coming will be on Yom Kippur (Tishri 10), and that is calculated by first observing the new moon (Rosh Hashanna), making that the first day of Tishri, and counting the days until the 10th of the month, then precise predictability as to the exact day can only be valid 10 days in advance. Converting the date in advance to our calendar with absolute certainty is not possible.
Anders,
I have not used Redshift 8. The tool in Redshift 7 measures the separation between any two bodies as viewed from earth, and is not affected by the degree of magnification. In the toolbar at the top it has an icon that looks like a compass for drawing circles. You click the icon, then point and click one of the objects, and drag the pointer to the other object, and the degrees of separation appears in the toolbar at the bottom of the screen.
My reference point of observation was Jerusalem. My experiments only sought to find a minimum degree of separation between the VISIBLE new moon and the horizon at sunset. As I said, I could see the new moon with the naked eye only when it was a minimum of 12-14 degrees behind the sunset. When the astronomy program showed less than that, I was not able to observe a new moon after many tries because the sky was still to light.
I realize that this is not precise, but was the best that I could achieve to find a baseline. I realize that the moon’s orbit is not consistent from month to month, and yes, the time of day that the astronomical new moon actually occurs can make a whole day’s difference. And yes, one’s eyesight is a factor. And yes, air pollution and light pollution can be factors. At the time I did these experiments I would say that my distance eyesight was pretty good, and I had Diane with me also observing. So my observations would probably be typical of any observer. Probably the only way to improve my experimental method would be do duplicate the process on the Mount of Olives.
Since the Jews observed the new moon every month for purposes of setting the calendar for the feasts, they had tabulated past new moons. They were also well aware that the lunar cycle averages to about 29.5 days. So they never declared a new moon LESS than 29 days from the previous, nor more than 30 days. Despite the variables, there would never be more than a 2 day variation, even with bad weather for both observation days. In other words, their months were always either 30 days or 29 days (never 28 or 31).
In any case, the purpose of my experiments more than 10 years ago was for calculating the feast days.
When I said that Regulus and Venus appear to “touch” I was referring to observation with the naked eye without any kind of magnification. As you know, stars and planets are not sharply focused objects, but have a bit of a fuzzy glow about them. This is also represented visibly in the astronomy programs. When you view these things with the naked eye, even in the astronomy program, without any magnification, Venus and Regulus appear to merge their glow together into what appears to be a crowning with two objects with a single glow around them. This is also true when you magnify them by 200% and even 300%. You have to magnify the sky by at least 400% before you can see any separation at all.
I copied a screenshot from my Redshift 7 program and uploaded it to the 4 winds site so you can see what I see. https://4windsfellowships.net/bbi_notes/11/Redshift7_10-02-2036.png
What is marked (EST – Eastern Standard Time) is my local time which is -5:00 UTC. Jerusalem time is +2:00 UTC, seven hours ahead of my time. According to my astronomy program, on Yom Kippur, at 00:35 UTC Venus and Regulus will rise above the horizon in the east with a small visible separation between them. By 06:00 UTC (about 8:00am Jerusalem time) that visible separation will completely disappear so that to the naked eye they will not be distinguishable. By 09:00 UTC (11:00 am Jerusalem time) Venus will have passed Regulus so as to be distinguishable again to the naked eye. Of course, this all will occur during daytime (viewed from Jerusalem), which means the sky will be bright and neither will be visible (certainly not Regulus), unless of course the sun has been darkened and the moon turned blood red for 10 days, from Rosh Hashanna through Yom Kippur, then this display could easily be “the sign of the Son of Man in heaven” that people will observe. Time will tell. (Also, note that Venus is only the “morning star” when it appears in the morning, but is the evening star when it appears in the evening).
Matt. 24:29-30 (NKJV) 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
Rev. 22:16 (NKJV) 16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”
I am not saying that this particular convergence of Venus (the “morning Star”) and Regulus (the King star) in Leo on Yom Kippur (the very day that the year 6000 from the curse begins) is definitely “the Sign of the Son of Man.” But if not, there sure seem to be some significant coincidences with my previous work on the Mazzaroth and chronology.
Anders,
In Rev. 8:2,6 John saw seven angels with seven trumpets. IMO, they must be 7 distinct beings.
Again, in 15:1 John saw seven angels who had the seven last plagues (bowls). Again, IMO, these must be distinct beings.
In 17:1 “one of the seven angels” spoke to John and showed him ‘Mystery Babylon.’ One of seven requires seven distinct beings.
Anders,
Your measurements need to be more precise than merely 0.1 degrees in order to observe what I was talking about. I am using Redshift 7 which has a measuring tool to measure the distances between objects. You can zoom in and then take very precise measurements. Here are the measurements between the closest passes between Venus and Regulus this century measuring from the center of Regulus to the center of Venus using the measuring tool when the distance is the least.
Oct. 03, 2004 00 deg. 09’02.31″
Oct. 03, 2012 00 deg. 07’01.22″
Oct. 02, 2020 00 deg. 05’12.96″
Oct. 02, 2028 00 deg. 03’21.53″
Oct. 01, 2036 00 deg. 01’24.35″
Oct. 01, 2044 00 occultationThese observations would not be considered important or spectacular unless one understands the convergence of the following things: the Feast calendar and significance of Yom Kippur, the Mazzaroth (the significance of the 12 constellations – Leo the lion representing Christ and the Kingdom, and the brightest star – Regulus, meaning “King”), that the 6000th year from creation begins on that very day, and Jesus’ statement “I am the Root and Offspring of David, the bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Jesus is obviously not the planet Venus, so there must be some mystery or enigma regarding Venus’ (morning star) relationship to Christ as King, (the seed of David).
My theory is that the closest observable pass when Venus (morning star) passes below Regulus, so that to the naked eye Regulus crowns Venus on Oct. 1-2, 2036, which also happens to be the Day of Atonement, and also exactly the day that the 6,000th year begins (120th Jubilee year), is a bit too much to be pure coincidence. Of course, both of these are dependent on the interpretation of the symbols in my Mazzaroth Book and the chronology in my Time of the End book being correct. I only discovered this apparent coincidence recently, when teaching through Revelation (Module 11). For me it adds another piece of evidence for the validity of the chronology.
I believe that all of the signs given in Scripture are from the perspective of observation with the naked eye, in exactly the way that the ancient Jews calculated the holy days. That it is Yom Kippur is based on observation of the New Moon (Rosh Hashanna), and then counting to the 10th day of the month.
Regarding how to predict a new moon in the future, this is based on many experiments that I did when I was writing my book. I was using the same Redshift 7 program, and observing how many degrees following the sun (after sunset) a new moon could be spotted by the naked eye. You cannot observe an astronomical new moon with the naked eye because the sky is still much too bright at the moment of sunset. My conclusion was that the moon must be at least 12-14 degrees above the horizon at sunset in order for the sky to be dark enough to spot the faint sliver of the new moon before it also sets below the horizon. I observed many New Moons one or two days after the astronomical new moons and kept tables. I would observe each night beginning at sunset on the day and following days of an astronomical new moon. When the sky was clear and I could barely spot a new moon, I would check the astronomy program for that day and time and measure the number of degrees from the new moon to the horizon at sunset. By observing this over many months, usually from the top of the parking garage at Tampa International airport, I was able to determine the minimum number of degrees the moon must be following the sun in order for a new moon to be visible, at least 12-14 degrees AFTER the astronomical new moon. Consequently, I use the astronomy program to find the date when Rosh Hashanna begins at sunset when the moon is at minimum 12-14 degrees above the horizon at sunset. That is how I can calculate the future feast days on the biblical calendar. For 2036, The New Moon for Rosh Hashanna will be 14 degrees above the horizon at sunset on Sept. 21. So Sept. 22 is the earliest that Rosh Hashanna can occur. But there is also a 2 day window to account for weather conditions. Using the Jewish observational method, if weather conditions would not allow a possible new moon to be seen, they would look for it the following day. If weather was still an issue, they would never exceed 30 days from the previous new moon. On any given month, the new moon was possibly spotted either 29 or 30 days after the previous new moon. In any case, the possible dates for Rosh Hashanna in 2036 are Sept. 22-23 (using the observational method). Either of these days could be Rosh Hashanna, which is Tishri 1 on the Biblical calendar. That means that Tishri 10 (Yom Kippur) will be on Oct. 1 or 2.
Interesting observation. The “Son of Man” is also the “Messenger (Angel) of God” in Rev. 1:1,13.
On another note, what do you make of “another mighty angel” in Rev. 10:1 who is “clothed with a cloud. And a rainbow was on his head, his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire.” That sounds a lot like the “Son of Man” in Rev. 1, who is also the “Son of Man” in Rev. 14:14.
And what of the “7 thunders” in Rev. 10:4 which all uttered their voices when the “mighty angel” roars? And why was the message of the 7 thunders not written down? John heard and understood what the 7 thunders said. He just did not put it in writing. If he knew what the 7 thunders said, is it possible that he passed that down orally to his students?
Pramod,
The New Testament is clear that Christians (regardless of ethnicity) will act as “priests” in the Temple of God in the Kingdom.
Revelation 20:6 (NASB) Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.
Revelation 3:12 (NASB) ‘He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he will not go out from it anymore; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God, and My new name.
These things were said to the “seven churches” of Asia Minor, which were comprised mostly of Gentiles.
Regarding the Kingdom Temple in Ezekiel 40-48, it is important to understand who the intended audience was of Ezekiel’s prophecy. It was not written for us, or even with us in mind. It was written to the Jews who had just been carried into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. This particular vision was given to Israel to encourage them in their present circumstances and give them great hope that the Kingdom will indeed come.
Consequently, it uses language that would be meaningful to them. An “uncircumcised” person to them was a derogatory term, a euphemism for a pagan, one who worshipped a god other than the God of Abraham. At the time, men who were worshippers of the one true God were required to be circumcised in their flesh. This even applied to proselytes (gentiles) who were joined to Israel. So to the original audience, this statement meant that no pagans would enter God’s Temple. Then the statement that neither will the “uncircumcised in heart” be allowed, this refers to Israelites whose religion was merely external.
Ephesians 2 makes it clear that Gentile Christians are “brought near” to Israel and the covenants. Colossians explains that baptized Gentile Christians are “circumcised.”
Col. 2:11-14 (NKJV) 11 In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
The baptism of our flesh is “the circumcision of Christ.” Note that it is our flesh that is baptized, so that this is indeed the “circumcision” in the flesh of the New Covenant. So while the original audience to which Ezekiel was written understood that prophecy to mean that no pagan (or any Jew whose religion was merely external) has no place in the Kingdom Temple, the New Testament applies such things in a new paradigm, and how it applies to Gentile believers. All Christians, male and female, are “circumcised” both in the flesh and in the heart at the same time because our conversion is both internal and external. This is why baptism is called being “born of water and of the Spirit/Breath” (John 3:3,5) because it is both external and internal simultaneously.
You should not think of “the church” and “Israel” as completely separate entities. That is leftover “dispensationalist” thinking, which is not what the Bible teaches. The covenants were made with Israel, including the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). So redeemed “Israel” IS “the Church.” As Gentiles, we are joined with Israel and her covenants and promises, the Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant.
Brian,
The Scripture reveals the relationship between God and His Son using human procreative and familial terminology. Terms such as “father” and “son” and “begotten” and “only begotten Son” and “only begotten of the Father” and “according to kind” are all terms that only have meaning because of our human experience. Yet God chose to use these very terms concerning His relationship to His Son because of the parallels that He wished to convey for our understanding. That is how He wants us to think about Him and His Son. No doubt, such procreative and familial terms are finite and inadequate for conveying the full complexities of God, His Son, and the origin of the Son. But they are sufficient for conveying what God wants us to know and understand at this time.
One of the dangers of “philosophy” (what Paul called “pseudo-knowledge”) is that it is not satisfied with fully understanding what God has revealed. Pseudo-knowledge seeks to speculate beyond what God has revealed, and then claim that speculation as fact. We should be satisfied with understanding fully what God has revealed, rather than attempting to speculate in areas that God has not revealed.
Scripture is clear that God’s Agent in the OT, who is called the Messenger of the LORD, and often goes by God’s own name YHVH, was indeed learning by experience. He even changed His mind when He was about to destroy Israel, yet Moses interceded and reasoned with Him. It is clear from His encounter with Abraham in Gen. 22 that having tested Abraham’s faith, He learned something about Abraham that He did not know for certain previously. “For now I know that you fear God, because you did not withhold your only son from Me.”
Since God is unbegotten, but the Son was “begotten” at a point in time (“Today I have begotten You”), the Son has only existed in time not in eternity. While the term “begotten” indicates an origin at a specific point in time, something that does not apply to the Father, this does not mean that they are ontologically different. Adam and Seth had very different origins. Adam was created from dust as an adult, and Eve was created from Adam’s rib as an adult. Together they procreated Seth. Adam and Eve were created, having the ability to speak and understand language, and the ability to tend the Garden of Eden without having to go through the process of acquiring the skills. Seth had none of those things. He had to learn to crawl, walk, speak, and be taught skills. Was Seth ontologically the same as Adam, of the same “kind?” Of course. But they had completely different origins. Consequently, it is a mistake to claim that sameness of KIND requires sameness of knowledge. As far as we know, knowledge comes from experience and learning. Why would this not apply to the Son who was “begotten” like Seth was begotten?
If we take all that Scripture reveals about God and His Son, and if we interpret the terminology that God chose to use (the normal meanings of the terms) in order to reveal all that He wants us to know at this time, then the conclusions that I stated in what you quoted are the logical implications. IMO, we must take the familial – procreative language at face value, and not go beyond Scripture by speculating in things that God has not yet revealed. He will reveal more to us in the Kingdom. One day, if we remain faithful, we will “see God.”
Anders,
Here is Rev. 12:6 from the LGV.
6 And the woman escaped into the wilderness where she has a place there having been prepared from God (so that they may be nourishing her there) a thousand two hundred sixty days.
The verb translated “having been prepared” is in the perfect tense, which indicates that the place was prepared before the women flees to it. The bracketed words (so that they may be nourishing her there) is a parenthetical statement explaining why the place was prepared beforehand. So, without the explanation which interrupts the flow of the sentence, this verse reads: “And the woman escaped into the wilderness where she has a place there having been prepared from God a thousand two hundred sixty days. That is, the 1260 days is the duration of the time of preparation not the time she is being nourished.
Also, the antecedents for “they” (which is plural) must also be plural. Those who will nourish the woman are the two witnesses in chapter 11. In other words, prior to the woman fleeing, God has been preparing a place for the entire duration of the ministry of the two witnesses, so that when their ministry is concluded, and when the woman flees there at the time of the abomination of desolation, they may nourish her in that place where she flees which was prepared beforehand. When the two witnesses are killed by Antichrist when he rises to power, they will be raised 3.5 days later, and then be “taken up into the sky” and relocated to the place of refuge just as Elijah was relocated and Philip was relocated after baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch.
