text:
Seals Overlap
Tribulation is a time of increasing destruction.
Revelation 6 is given below.
Note that the Seals are opened one at a time.
Nowhere does it say that once a seal is opened, it is then closed, and another seal is opened.
This means that once a seal is opened, it remains opened while other seals are opened.
And this means that the Tribulation events get worse and worse, and destruction increases over time:
Revelation 6King James Version (KJV)
6 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
3 And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.
4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellow servants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
This is actually a compassionate way to wake people up as trouble comes.
Instead of all coming at once, which would be overwhelming, each seal is opened, one at a time, and people are allowed in their distress to repent.
In my view, the seals have been partially opened for 2000 years. But one would open, then close.
At times, for example, we would have famine, but then we would prosper again.
Or, there would be a time of pestilence, as in the bubonic plague, but then that would pass.
Or, there would be a war, but it would finally end.
In the Tribulation, things just get worse.
We are entering into this now, just maybe days, weeks, or months to go.
Even one of these seals by themselves is unbearable.
Only with the Lord's help will any of us make it to the end.
Time to repent.
Humble ourselves before God,
Ask for forgiveness and mercy.
263 Responses to "Seals Overlap"
I thought the first half of the Tribulation begins with Israel's peace treaty?
Isn't amazing how the colors of the horses of the apocalypse are the same color as in the muslin countries flags.
her mention about the book of enoch
" Journalists " don't try to gin up sympathy by injecting themselves into a story . B. It's all staged to push their Agenda , he provides time to push their propaganda for his puppet masters .
Bottom line , Most " news " is all STAGED ., wikileak prove it,
this guy is such a scum bag, the way he lies with his soft spoken language and intelligence. They are slowly revealing themselves and they want us to know who they are. This is America and it is hard to believe this is happening in this way.
the guy is an illuminati puppet – he is a counsel of foreign relations / new world order PUPPET – these reporters their scripts for the mind control of the population, wikileaks prove it, Just look at the look in his evil eyes. This guy is a piece of illuminati -puppet. wikileaks prove it, puppet of his master,
this owl & other symbols, that owl is a symbol for child sacrifice, since when kids were sacrificed to moloch they were said to always be the first born of the family
Ten corrie boom and her family 'story , we need to watch this
carrie boom museum
Hi Marianne ,
social justice is not biblical , right ?
if they are different , could you briefly , one or two word to tell the difference.
Hi Marianne,
what is your endtime timeline?
from the above video 1260, the pastor think this year we might enter into the
final 7 years?
what is your thoughts ?
God BLess
Hi dmcal52,
Thank you for your reply.
Before addressing some of the particulars of your response, allow me to start with Amos 3:7.
"Surely the Lord God WILL DO NOTHING but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets."
(Note: Prophets above would also include Apostle's and Disciple's.)
Now, though the meaning of that text appears to be self-evident, many don't fully comprehend its depth and scope.
What Amos 3:7. is stating is that "God's Word" is entirely complete in itself.
That from Genesis through to and including Revelation, everything regarding God's Will and Plan for man has been expressed and contained within scripture. There is absolutely nothing left out, and everything in its entirety, down to the smallest of details, has been recorded within His Word.
Though the above would be obviously be accurate, simply by what God states within the verse itself, how "in being true" are we able to hold the vastness of all that the above implies, "in one solitary hand?"
The answer is; Because "God in His Glory is incomprehensibly proficient!"
What this means then is, that "passages of verses" are also at times "polysemantic" in that they are not only expressing one truth or narrative on the surface of the text, but that the text itself, actually consists of a "duality or multiplicity of meanings", and can also be referencing completely different individuals, groups or scenarios, than what the text you may be reading is essentially expressing itself.
This "fact" has already been demonstrated within the New Testament "countless times", where Jesus, Apostle's and Disciple's "cull out verses" from the Old Testament text, that were completely applicable to the narrative in which they were utilized initially, and reapply "these exact same verses" to express and reveal a new, and previously unrealized Biblical Truth.
As well, this "definition" of Amos 3:7., would be supported by Hosea 12:10., where God says that He has also provided us with "similitudes or examples", which only further confirms the above aspect of "duality and multiplicity of meanings".
For just one illustration of this, I offer "Abraham and Isaac" within Genesis 22:1-19., (though being an actual historical account), it is also comprised of "duality of meaning" for we as followers of Jesus recognize these passages as being a "foreshadowing" of "God providing the sacrifice of Jesus".
So, in keeping Amos 3:7., and the above in mind, I'll begin addressing your response in sequence.
Unfortunately, by also "quoting you", this reply will be rather lengthy.
First you say;
"I believe that you mistaken in your understanding regarding the letters to the churches. Though these were letters to each specific church, the information contained within them is for every believer and all churches throughout the entire church period. For at the end of each of the letters it says, "Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
My reply;
"Though I don't believe that I provided you with enough specificity in respects to the "letters to the churches" for you to determine what I may, or may not believe, I will say that "I AGREE that these letters contain information that is pertinent, for all believers throughout the entire church period."
For example, the promise of Jesus giving the overcomer a white stone with a new name written on it found in the letter to the church of Pergamum, is also a promise to the other six types of churches and every overcoming believer throughout the entire church period. All of the promises to the overcomer can be applied to every believer throughout the entire church period. That said, the promise to those who endure patiently to keep them out of the hour of trial, is not only to the overcomers of the church of Philadelphia, but to all believers throughout the entire church period who endure patiently.
My reply;
"I would just like for you to pay attention to what you have written above, particularly the aspect of each and every reward, being dependant upon whether Jesus would determine, (as Judge) if an individual was an "Overcomer" or not."
Regarding what you said about Laodicea not being "kept from the hour of trial" is not true. It is only those who do not overcome within that church that will not be kept from that hour of trial. Any believer who belonged to the actual church of Laodicea, as well as believers throughout the entire church period that fit that church type and who overcome, will also be kept from that hour of trial. Those letters to the seven churches are also to all churches and individual believers throughout the entire church period.
My reply;
"What Biblical evidence can you provide to substantiate that "Laodicea not being "kept from the hour of trial" is not true?"
(Please see my next reply.)
Likewise, whatever the promise is for the overcomer, it is the opposite for those who do not overcome. Example: He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death vs. He who does not overcome will be hurt by the second death. The bottom line is that, any believer who is an overcomer, regardless of church type, will receive the promises given to each church."
My reply;
"Again, notice how much "rewards" are dependant upon whether Jesus determines an individual to be an "Overcomer" or not.
Overcomers will receive rewards, and those that won't be determined to be Overcomers, will not.
In "that" we agree.
Now though YOU say above, "Regarding what you said about Laodicea not being "kept from the hour of trial" is not true. It is only those who do not overcome within that church that will not be kept from that hour of trial" that's NOT what JESUS says!
Let's examine those "letters to the Churches" with a little more scrutiny.
In the letter to the Church of Ephesus, JESUS says the following warning in 2:4,5., where He commands these individuals to change what they are doing WRONG and REPENT;
"Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and REPENT, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou REPENT."
This warning would have relevance to all who follow Jesus.
He of course is, "our First Love".
I will leave it up to you to interpret what this is saying, because it is not relevant to the point that I'm wishing to make at this time.
In the letter to the Church of Smyrna, JESUS offers a different type of warning in 2:10.;
"Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life."
Again, this warning would have relevance to all who follow Jesus.
We must all be faithful and be willing to die for Jesus, no matter when or where.
In the letter to the Church of Pergamos, JESUS says the following warning in 2:14-16., where He commands these individuals to change what they are doing WRONG and REPENT;
"But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. REPENT; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."
Again, this warning would have relevance to all who follow Jesus.
In the letter to the Church of Thyatira, JESUS says the following warning in 2:20-22., where He commands these individuals to change what they are doing WRONG and REPENT;
"Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they REPENT of their deeds."
Again, this warning would have relevance to all who follow Jesus.
In the letter to the Church of Sardis, JESUS says the following warning in 3:1-3, where He commands these individuals to change what they are doing WRONG and REPENT;
"And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and REPENT. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee."
Again, this warning would have relevance to all who follow Jesus.
So within Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira and Sardis we have JESUS saying that some individuals aren't conducting themselves correctly and need to repent.
Where if they didn't change their ways and REPENT, He WOULDN'T determine or consider them to be "Overcomers".
Yet at the same time, Jesus praises other individuals, within 2:2,3., (Ephesus), 2:9., (Smyrna), 2:13., (Pergamos), 2:19. and 24,25., (Thyatira) & 3:4. (Sardis).
Where, if they continued in their praise worthy conduct He WOULD determine and consider them to be "Overcomers".
So, by what Jesus says, we have "those" that are approved of by Him and those that still need to repent.
Those that would be determined to be Overcomers and those that wouldn't.
Now we come to the Church of Philadelphia, and what JESUS SAYS regarding this Church.
NOT ONCE is there any mention for the need to REPENT to any individual. Jesus praises each and every member of this particular Church.
Jesus has set before each member of this Church the reward of an "open door", because each and every member has kept His word, and not denied His name. Jesus utilizes the word "agapaō" when He refers to these individuals, (which is a far cry from "phileō").
Because He is so pleased with the conduct of these individuals and their demonstration of their faith, having kept the word of His patience, Jesus tells them that He will will "keep all of them from the hour or time of the temptation, (or testing)" which is to come upon the whole world as a trial. Another reward for just these members.
Jesus tells them that He is coming shortly, and for them to "hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."
This would mean that Jesus has already given each member a crown, and if they "hold fast" or "continue" in what they have already demonstrated to Him, then no man will deter Him from presenting that reward to them.
The Church of Philadelphia is comprised solely of "beloved" Overcomers, with access to the "open door and escaping the Temptation and Trial."
Jesus will grant them the opportunity to eat from the tree of life, (Rev. 2:7.).
They will receive the "crown of life" and will "not be harmed by the second death". (Rev. 2:10,11.).
Jesus will grant them the opportunity to eat of the "hidden manna" (the concealed and kept secret nourishment), and will give them a white stone with a new name written upon it which no man knows except for the one that receives it, (Rev. 2:17.).
Jesus will give them "power over nations", just as the Father has given that power to Him, and they shall rule together, and receive the morning star, (Rev 2:26-28.).
The members of the Church of Philadelphia will walk with Jesus in white garments, being determined to be Overcomers, and Jesus Won't "blot" out their name from the "book of life", but will instead proclaim their name before Father God and His angels, (Rev. 3:4,5.).
Jesus will make them pillars in God's Temple, and He will write the Name of God upon them, as well as His new Name, and the Name of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12).
Now we come to the Church of Laodicea, where JESUS SAYS, each and every member is the antithesis to the members of the Church of Philadelphia, and have NOT been determined as being "Overcomers".
Jesus says that because all of the members of this Church are neither hot or cold, He is going to spit them out of His mouth.
Jesus says that all of the members of this Church are "wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked".
Jesus then advises them to "buy gold from Him, gold that has been purified by fire, (by Testing and Trial) then they will be rich, and will be able to buy white garments from Him, so they will not be ashamed of their nakedness, and be able to also buy ointment for their eyes so they will be able to see".
Jesus says that He REBUKES (corrects) and CHASTENS (disciplines) everyone that He loves, (again phileō rather than agapaō), and since the members of the Church of Philadelphia are NOT wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked, and have therefore been spared from the "hour or time of the temptation", one should be able to reasonably conclude, that since Jesus has Not determined these members of the Church of Laodicea as being Overcomers, but instead calls them wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked, His correcting and discipline of fire, would consist of subjecting these individuals to the "hour or time of the temptation", which in sequence as written, would be HIS SEALS.
Do you understand why I started with the explanation of Amos 3:7.?
1 Peter 4:17.;
"For the time is come that JUDGEMENT MUST BEGIN at the house of God: and if it first BEGIN at US, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?"
2 Timothy 4:1.;
"I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall JUDGE the quick and the dead at His APPEARING and his kingdom;"
2 Timothy 4:8.;
"Henceforth there is laid up for me a "crown of righteousness", which the Lord, the righteous JUDGE, shall give me at THAT DAY: and not to me only, but unto ALL THEM also that love His APPEARING."
Above Peter says that the "JUDGEMENT" will begin first with the "CHURCH", and Paul says, that Jesus will make this "JUDGEMENT" when HE APPEARS, which by 1 Corinthians 15:52., will all happen in a twinkling of an eye.
If one takes into consideration the depth and scope of Amos 3:7., THAT GOD WILL DO NOTHING until He reveals His plans to His servants the prophets, or Apostle's, then where is the above JUDGMENT recorded within scripture?
If Revelation 4:1. is signifying the Rapture, (the First Resurrection), then it must be recorded prior to that verse, and the only passages that could possibly fulfill that criteria are Revelation 2:1. through 3:22..
Where if that is indeed the case, then those members of the Church of Philadelphia are as Jesus Says, the ONLY ONES that are allowed through that "open door" and everybody else is subjected to the "Hour of Testing or Temptation".
The above more or less addresses the rest of your last replies, so I'll simply sign off here.
And though I could provide you with a substantial amount of evidence that is foreshadowed within the Old Covenant regarding this, and "two resurrections" for those that believe in, and have faith in Jesus, (particularly what the "BUY" in Matthew 25:9,10. and Revelation 3:18. is signifying), I suspect that you would simply say that this is wrong too.
We obviously both have faith and love Jesus, and we'll just have to wait and see how this all unfolds.
Hi dmcal52,
What I was trying to accomplish in my last response above, was to demonstrate as to how God in His Glory is so incomprehensibly proficient, and how He utilizes "duality and multiplicity of meaning" within His Word.
I had hoped by what I had provided above, that you would recognize, (by what JESUS SAYS within the "letters to the Church's", ) that there are "four" distinctly different Church's.
1) Smyrna is distinct in itself, in that it's message would be directed to all Overcomers that Father God has chosen to demonstrate their faith, by being prepared and willing to die for Jesus as He had died for us. And this message is applicable to the past, present and future.
2) Ephesus, Pergamos and Thyatira are comprised of both Overcomers and those that are NOT Overcomers.
3) The Church of Philadelphia is comprised of ONLY Overcomers.
4) The Church of Laodicea is comprised of those that are NOT Overcomers.
In doing so I had also hoped, that by taking into consideration Amos 3:7. and the fact that "God cannot lie", then the "judgment" of the Church's must be recorded somewhere. And that since by Hosea 12:10., God says that He has provided us with "similitudes or examples", (where the New Testament is composed by the very same Author), He is in no way obligated to us, to place that recording of "expressing what He is going to do through an Apostle" under the heading of "Judgment of the Church's", and that He could have expressed this "judgement" in a variety of different ways.
I had also hoped, that by bringing up the aspect of "duality and multiplicity of meaning" in scripture, that this might assist in clarifying a distinction between the "Wrath (or anger and discipline) of Jesus" and the "Wrath (or righteous judgement) of Father God, where verses such as….
Romans 5:9,10.;
"Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."
…. express the "duality and multiplicity of meaning" by the following;
1) Like the Church of Philadelphia, being saved from the "Trial and Time of Testing" the "Wrath (or anger and discipline) of Jesus" which He clearly says the He is going to perform to the Church of Laodicea in Revelation 3:19. (see Luke 21:36.)
2) Also in having being saved from the above, they would likewise be saved from the "Wrath (or righteous judgement) of Father God.
However, I'm not sure if I accomplished any of the above.
So, in leaving that discussion by the wayside, I have a proposal or challenge for you, (or anybody else that might be reading this), regarding the depth and "how much" God utilizes "duality and multiplicity of meaning" within scripture.
If you believe that Genesis 22:1-19., and "Abraham being willing to offer up Isaac" is also a symbolic foreshadowing of "God offering up Jesus as our sacrifice", (which though we aren't provide with any specificity regarding time frame, it wouldn't surprise me in the least, if all of this didn't happen on what would end up in the future as being Nissan 14th. or Passover), "who" do you think "Abram" is "symbolically foreshadowing" and what is the "duality of meaning" of Genesis 12:1, through 13:18.?
It's sort of a shame that everybody is arguing with each other on the "End is Near" page, and that probably no one will read the below.
It may just have some God inspired truth to it.
Nevertheless I will post it any way's.
I don't believe that any scripture that has being provided by God, is done so without intention or purpose.
Above I had asked, ""who" do you think "Abram" is "symbolically foreshadowing" and what is the "duality of meaning" of Genesis 12:1, through 13:18.?"
In taking into account both Amos 3:7., and Hosea 12:10., I believe that God is symbolically foreshadowing "ethnic Israel" through ABRAM within the chapters of Genesis 12 and 13.
Now that isn't as preposterous as it may sound, and to briefly support that last statement, I offer the following parallels.
ABRAM left his homeland of Ur with all of his family and possessions and dwelt in Haran.
JACOB, (Israel), left Beersheba with all of his family and possessions and dwelt in Egypt.
ABRAM was called out of Haran by God, and Abram with all of his family and possessions, made the exodus to Canaan. Where during that journey Abram went to a mountain, and then built an altar, before continuing on his long journey.
ISRAEL was called out of Egypt by God, and the family of Israel with all their possessions, made the exodus to Canaan. Where during that journey Israel went to a mountain and then built an altar, before continuing on their long journey.
DUE to there being a famine in the land, ABRAM had moved to Egypt, where while there, Sarai was held in bondage by Pharaoh. Which because of that, God caused plagues to come upon Pharaoh and all of his house. Where when Sarai was released, and ABRAM and all of his family and servants left, they left very rich, with livestock, silver and gold.
DUE to there being a famine in the land, ISRAEL had moved to Egypt, where while there, Israel was held in bondage by Pharaoh. Which because of that, God caused plagues to come upon Pharaoh and all of his house. Where when ISRAEL was released and left, they left very rich, with servants, livestock, silver and gold.
ABRAM was told by YHVH, to walk through the length and breadth of the land, northward, southward, eastward, and westward, (FOUR).
ISRAEL was told by YHVH to walk through the wilderness of the land, which lasted for FORTY years.
Now if this is indeed, Father God utilizing ABRAM as an "example and a symbolic foreshadowing" of ethnic ISRAEL, then what "specifically" had to occur BEFORE Abram, (or ethnic Israel) could then be declared to be "RIGHTEOUS, or tsĕdaqah" before a Holy Father God?
Here's a hint, WHO appears next in chapter 14 as a symbolical foreshadowing, and what then would God be expressing regarding Righteousness?
Actually, I think that I'll stay on tangent and comment on the "Two Resurrections" of believers in Jesus, that are foreshadowed in the Old Testament first.
I have already been lead to do my own study on "firstborns and second born" and it is so complicated that it's very difficult to articulate, but it is fascinating.
Sorry about the mistake and repetition with "On the surface of the surface of the text" in the 2nd. paragraph above.
God Bless
P.S. Thank you for the above compliment, but though I may personally have an aptitude to look outside the "9 dots", I don't attribute anything that I may say to having any bearing on anything to do with my personal attributes.
I don't study scripture with the motivation to prove what I may or may not believe.
Instead I ask God to show me what He wishes to reveal, where when He chooses to, more often than not, I am left dumfounded with the realization that what I now may understand was provided by a realm that has nothing whatsoever to do with my intellectual capacity.
But it is then that I have to distinguish whether or not that "thought" is indeed God's truth, by seeing if a contradiction to that "thought" presents itself within His Word. If I find one, then it was simply a carnal idea.
If I can't, then I hold it as a truth until it can been proven otherwise through scripture.
Where I see many problems arise, is not because of our "desire" to seek God's truth, but in our "nature" and how we seek that truth.
To a certain extent, the Holy Spirit is limited by what we choose to believe.
Since we all possess the "knowledge of good and evil" we are in essence, like gods, (Genesis 3:5., 3:22., Psalms 82:6. & John 10:34,35.).
However in being flesh, we don't have the capacity to possess the "knowledge of good and evil", and remain innocent or HOLY like God, because Father God is Spirit, (John 4:24.).
And because by nature, "our" flesh "fights against" the Spirit, what we happen to believe as gods, can then impede the Spirit from providing revelation in respects to God's truth.
(see Galatians 5:17., where what has been translated into the English "lusteth or lusts" is derived from the Greek "ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ", transliterated as "epithymeō kata" and can simply be defined as "sets its desire against".)
Therefore, though an individual may believe what is in actuality an error in interpretation, if they have committed that belief to be a truth within their heart and mind, that conviction in their flesh, obstructs the opportunity for the Spirit to correct that error.
Likewise, if someone doesn't believe in their heart or mind, that scripture goes far beyond what they can understand on the surface of the text, and instead only believes what they can understand solely on a literal and intellectual level, they simply interpret the majority of scripture carnally, and aren't receptive to any other potential spiritual possibilities.
Though they may indeed love Jesus, if they have placed the totality of what God is comprised of, within the parameters of what their personal level of comprehension and beliefs consist of, (which then grieves and quenches the Spirit), then they have literally placed God within the confines of their own limited and inadequate box, and have in essence, become their own stumblingstone in respects to receiving revelation from the Spirit.
We are finite, God isn't, and therefore neither is His Living Supernatural Word.
Nevertheless, "Thank You".
I will try to compile the foreshadowing of the "two resurrections" as concisely as possible, and post it here at a later date.
Hi Marianne,
After receiving your last reply, would you mind clarifying something for me?
I would agree that "we are in a lifelong process of having things revealed to us, and we seek to grow and understand as we go".
And I hope that you are also saying, "that opinions or thoughts" that are presented should be "heard and considered", (Proverbs 18:3., Acts 17:11.), and then by being Berean's, we are to "prove and test" these "thoughts or opinions" through scripture, (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) to determine whether they are "error" or "truth". And that, it is the "hope and objective" of this site, to establish the "difference" between the two.
If the above is another way of expressing what you were saying….. then I would like to present a "fact", in which you as a Berean can then verify .
(It's amusing, because I was going concentrate on providing the foreshadowing information recorded within the Old Testament, regarding the "two resurrections" for those that have faith and belief in Jesus, but apparently the following is to be provided first.)
Previously above I had mentioned that God had led me to do a study on "primogeniture".
Though I was in the process of conducting research on an entirely different topic at the time, in becoming aware over the years as how to everything is so interconnected, and while I had no idea as to what it would reveal, I followed the direction of the silently whispered voice.
This study not only provided further information that was germane to my initial topic, but it also provided me with a far greater understanding as to "why and how" God's Word is composed as it is.
Any way's, while looking over your exhaustive menu for anything that was relevant to the topic of "first and second's", I came across a page with the heading, "Why Mohammed was not the Comforter Promised by Jesus", where I believe, (though I suspect that it would have proved to be quite contentious) a better question to address the above would have been, "Is Allah the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob".
Consider the following;
During the process of that study I was directed to do, it of course took me back to the "multifaceted meanings" of what God had Moses scribe in the very beginning, as per Isaiah 46:9,10.
And though I am more than willing to provide supplementary Biblical evidence to verify the following in more detail at a later date, I will simply present the proceeding to be considered as "fact".
As a "similitude and example", (if Genesis 2:23,24., is understood in the context by what is expressed by Paul in Ephesians 5:25-33.) then "Adam was a "type" of Messiah" and a "foreshadowing" of Father God providing His Son, to take upon Himself the "sins that were born by others".
(Though there are even more meanings that are associated to the following;)
As a "similitude and example", "Cain" symbolically represents ethnic Israel, (providing a sacrifice that was not sufficient and therefore not received) and "Able" symbolically represents "Jesus" (providing a sacrifice that was sufficient and therefore was received) and as well, "Seth" symbolically represents "Jesus" when He returns, and it is all a "foreshadowing" of Father God providing His Son.
As a "similitude and example", "Abram" (as explained previously above) also symbolically represents ethnic Israel, where "Melchizedek King of Salem", symbolically represents "Jesus" and Father God providing His Son.
As a "similitude and example", "Abraham" is a "type" of God the Father, and "Isaac" is a "type" of "Jesus" and Genesis 22:1-19., is a foreshadowing of Father God providing His Son.
Then there was Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, who all in their own right as individuals, symbolically represent and foreshadow a "type" of Messiah and Father God providing His Son.
Not to mention Joshua, and the plethora of others that followed, that foreshadow a "type" of Messiah and Father God providing His Son.
Then there is "Passover"etc., etc., and the numerous other symbolic events that foreshadow Father God providing His Son.
So, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, has provided more than ample evidence that He will indeed provide man with His Son.
What does "Allah" say in the Qur'an?
Surah 4:171.;
"O People of the Scripture! (referring to Christian's.)
Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth.
The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.
So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One Allah.
Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He SHOULD HAVE A SON.
His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender."
Surah 17:111.;
"Say: "Praise be to Allah, WHO BEGETS NO SON, and has no partner in (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!" (His) dominion: Nor (needs) He any to protect Him from humiliation: yea, magnify Him for His greatness and glory!"
Say: "Those who invent a lie against Allah will never prosper." A little enjoyment in this world!- and then, to Us will be their return, then shall We make them taste the severest penalty for their blasphemies."
Surah 19:88-92.;
"THEY SAY: (referring to Christian's and the "people of the book")
"(Allah) Most Gracious has BEGOTTEN A SON!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, THAT THEY SHOULD INVOKE A SON for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He SHOULD BEGET A SON."
And what does John say in 2 John 1:7.?
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who CONFESS NOT THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."
The aspect of Jesus being born is not denied by Allah, (he even refers to Him as being the Messiah (Annointed One) himself in surah 4:171).
However, what John is referring to specifically regarding "Jesus coming in the flesh", can be understood with more clarity by what John records elsewhere.
John 1:1. That Jesus WAS and IS God.
John 1:18., 3:16., 3:18., and 1 John 4:9. That Jesus is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Therefore the question of "Why Mohammed was not the Comforter Promised by Jesus" is answered by the "fact" that by Allah stating that he never had a son, he is confessing that he is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but a counterfeit imposter.
Hi Marianne,
Actually, your response in many ways is quite accurate, though it does miss the mark regarding "who" Ishmael symbolically represents and foreshadows "specifically", not only by my "logic, thought or opinion", but also by some critical passages that are provided within the New Testament.
First in defense of Abram, (before God changed his name to Abraham), though Abram knew that he would father an heir, (Genesis 15:4.), he wasn't yet aware when he and Hagar conceived "Ishmael" that the promise of that heir, would be a son through Sarah, (Genesis 17:16.,19.,21. & 18:10.,14.).
Now Abram, "אַבְרָם", transliterated as "'Avram", means "Exalted Father".
And Sarai, "שָׂרַי", transliterated as "Saray", means "Princess".
Therefore, "who" is ABRAM the "father" of?
So allow for me to ask my previous question again by wording it differently, before I will address my other two questions after seeing your reply.
If within Genesis 22:1-19., (notice the change in name), ABRAHAM was a "type" of "God the Father", that would have already had a son, before "Isaac" who clearly symbolically represents "Jesus" here, then "who" was "God the Fathers firstborn son" before "Jesus"?
"Ishmael" would then be the equivalent (as a symbolic representation, and foreshadowing) to God the Fathers "firstborn son".
(Regarding the antichrist spirit, that would be accurate in the context of those that don't believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah.)
So again, "who" does "Ishmael" foreshadow and symbolically represent?
Hi Marianne,
Well the answer as to "who" Ishmael symbolically represents and foreshadows is "ethnic Israel", Abram and God's firstborn son, (Exodus 4:22.)
And "ethnic Israel" would also have "duality of meaning" in that, it would also incorporate "all of mankind" that doesn't believe in Jesus as their Saviour, and everyone that Jesus as Judge, would deem to be "firstborn and flesh" .
No one that isn't born of the Spirit, can see or enter the Kingdom of God, (John 3:3. & 5.).
No one that isn't born of the Spirit, will be an HEIR with Jesus, because they are flesh, and are "firstborn" instead of Spirit and a "New second born Creation", (John 3:6.).
Genesis 21:10. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, "Cast Out" this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall NOT be HEIR with my Son, even with Isaac".
God agreed with Sarah, and her decision, and Abraham was told by God in Genesis 21:12. to listen to Sarah, and do what she said, because, "for in Isaac shall thy Seed be called."
And Abraham (as a "type" of God the Father), gives and leaves everything to Isaac, (as a "type" of Jesus) as his heir, (Genesis 25:5.).
Though God is not finished with ethnic Israel for the sake of the fathers, His first "love" are those that have "faith and belief" in His Son, because Jesus died to create this "New second born Creation".
But this "Casting Out" for ethnic Israel and the rest of the unbelieving world of "firstborn flesh", as well as those from the Church of Laodicea, who have been deemed by Jesus to be "wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked", (hence exposing their flesh), is the "Casting Into" the "Trial and Time of Testing" and the "Wrath (or anger and discipline) of Jesus", (Revelation 3:10. & 19.), otherwise referred to as the SEALS, where all have the opportunity to repent and come to, (or back to) HIM.
Consider this, currently as it stands today, "ethnic Israel" simply thinks that we as Christians are delusional to believe in a "Man-God".
They believe that God is merely One and that He has said within the Old Testament over a 100 times, that HE IS the "Redeemer, Deliverer, Salvation and Saviour" and they have no concept that because "man of flesh" (1st.Adam, firstborn) was the nail in the coffin that then caused sin and death, that a "Man of Spirit" (2nd. Adam, Second Born) was necessary to repair and reconcile that sin and death. (see 1 Corinthians 15:45.)
Something very significant has to occur to very make them, "jealous", (Deuteronomy 32.21., Romans 10:19., and 11:11.) and for their eye's to be opened to the possibilities of a Man-God, (not to mention the rest of the "firstborn flesh" world).
Now from what I can gather from your website, you have been doing this from at least January 2007, and when you didn't immediately reply in your response above with the answer "ethnic Israel" it did leave me rather confused.
I thought that the response of "ethnic Israel" would have simply been automatic. (?)
Since you mentioned the Book of Isaiah above, was I wrong in assuming that after all of these years, you haven't followed God the Fathers instructions and directive, (Commandment or Torah) to…. "Look to Abraham if you were seeking Righteousness before a Holy God".
Isaiah 51:1,2.;
"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him."
Though we have barely scratched the surface by what I have provided in all the above, this is basically what we have done.
We've "Looked back to Abraham", but also since this is the Word of God, we were thorough, and went right back to Abram.
We discovered that by obeying YHVH, and being the "firstborn son" of Terah, Abram received the fulfillment of his "firstborn birthright", and became the Father of "ethnic Israel", the "firstborn people" of God that were as a whole, comprised of "flesh".
Abram, "אַבְרָם", transliterated as "'Avram", means "Exalted Father", and he was the "father of ethnic Israel".
Sarai, (who was barren, which foreshadows Mary being a Virgin) wasn't involved physically with the birth of Ishmael, only Hagar was.
In Genesis 17:5. & 15,16. after Abram's encounter with "Melchizedek King of Salem" (Jesus), God then changes both his and Sarai's name.
Abram becomes Abraham, and Sarai becomes Sarah.
Abraham, "אַבְרָהָם", transliterated as "'Avraham", means "Father of Multitudes, or, Nations".
Sarah, "שָׂרָה", transliterated as "Sarah", means, "Princess of Nations".
Like when we ourselves have our own personal encounter with Jesus, and we become "born again of Spirit", and we become a "New second born Creation", Abram in now having his name changed to Abraham, also becomes a "second born" and with it becomes the "Father of Promise, Faith and Belief".
Sarah's name was changed because she foreshadows Mary, where both will play a significant role in the fulfillment of bringing forth God's Promise.
So you are right in your reply regarding Ishmael, where you say;
"why he was born first, to show how abraham (ABRAM) produced flesh instead of spirit " and that "hagar was flesh, and rebellion against the promise, and so was her son. Ishmael was not mentioned because he was not the one promised, he was the result of man's actions, not God's"
In other words, Abram, (a firstborn) and Hagar's (a woman that is a slave) union and the birth of Ishmael foreshadow as a "similitude and example", how futile flesh, or a human attempt is, in being able to fulfill Gods Promise.
Now what also struck me as odd, was that all of this is explained within the New Testament by Paul.
Within Galatians 4:21. through to 5:1., Paul explains in detail what we have more or less covered over these last couple of posts, and why I thought it peculiar that you didn't answer with "ethnic Israel" in your first reply.
Many do find Galatians 4:21. to be confusing, so if I may quote that verse from the K.J.V., I'll also explain what Paul's question actually consists of.
4:21. "Tell me, "YE THAT DESIRE" to be under the law, do ye not "HEAR" the law?"
4:21. is rendered in the Greek Morphological text as;
"λέγετέ μοι οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε"
And would be transliterated as;
"legete moi hoi hypo nomom thelontes einai ton nomom ouk akouete".
As rendered, this in turn would roughly translate into English as;
"Tell me you who under law want to be the law do you not hear?"
The translated English "YE THAT DESIRE" was derived from the Greek verb "θέλοντες", transliterated as "thelontes".
Thelontes is defined as, "to will, have in mind, intend, to be resolved or determined, to purpose, to desire, to wish etc.".
Within the first portion of the verse, "ye that desire to be under the law", Paul is referring to the "Mosaic Law".
The translated "HEAR", above, has far more to do with the concept of "understanding" rather than anything audible.
With "hear" being derived from the Greek verb, "ἀκούετε", transliterated as "akouete", from the definitions of the word, it's context is to be understood as, "to attend to, consider what is or has been said, to understand, perceive the sense of what is said, to comprehend, to understand, to give ear to a teaching or a teacher to learn".
Therefore where Paul poses the question, "do ye not HEAR the law?", in the latter portion of the verse, he is now referring to "Torah", and a time reaching back in history, far further than that of the Mosaic Law.
The verse itself should have been rendered as "Tell me you that desire to be under the Mosaic Law, do you not understand Torah?"
This can be easily verified by the very fact that, that all the narrative from this point forward in chapter 4, is all from Torah, (with the exception of verse 4:27., [Isaiah 54:1.] which also happens to reference Torah) and a time that predates the Mosaic Law.
Paul expresses that there are two Covenants where the "First" one is symbolically represented and foreshadowed by "Hagar and Ishmael", a slave and a "firstborn of flesh", which consists of a futile human effort to fulfill God's Promise.
But that the "Second" Covenant is symbolically represented and foreshadowed by "Sarah and Isaac" where both are "free", are "Second Born" and represent "the Fulfillment of Promise, Faith and Belief".
I am sure that after all of your years of study that you are well aware that after Abraham demonstrated his willingness to offer up Isaac, (which was clearly a foreshadowing of the Father providing Jesus), that Abraham didn't once see the need to offer up any "offering or sacrifice" of any kind to God, and how this would be germane to the irrelevance of the Mosaic Law, as opposed to Faith after Jesus.
But since you didn't, (and haven't yet) answered with "ethnic Israel", I am wondering as to how you personally interpret the text of Galatians 4:21. through to 5:1.?
Would you be kind enough to fill me in?
Hi Marianne,
Thanks for your response.
To me what you provided in your reply, only further demonstrates the "duality and multiplicity of meaning" that God provides us within scripture.
I would agree that, "Isaac represents Christ, Spirit, Salvation, and I would also add, the fulfillment of "Promise", and that "Ishmael represents antichrist, what is not saved, "flesh" and the lack of fulfillment of Promise".
As I said above within one of my previous posts when you first introduced this "antichrist" concept, "Regarding the antichrist spirit, that would be accurate in the context of those that don't believe that Jesus was indeed the Messiah", these individuals in God the Fathers eyes would be considered as "flesh" and "firstborns".
Now though this may sound like the most ridiculous question that has ever been asked, I'm going to ask it anyway.
"Do you believe that what "Isaac" represents, as opposed to what "Ishmael" represents, are the extreme antithesis of each other?"
I'm going to assume that you answered "YES" to the above and continue on, :-), though the aspect of "opposition" must be fully understood.
Now where you say, "they are different topics but they overlap", I'm not sure what you are referring to exactly?
But since you provided scripture from the passages that I had directed you to, I'll assume that it has relevance to them.
Do you remember the definition that I provided above regarding Amos 3:7.?
Well, whether these passages of Galatians 4:21. through 5:1., were expressed by Paul, or any other Apostle, they had to be expressed to fulfill Amos 3:7.
The meaning of what "Abram, Hagar and Ishmael" opposed to "Abraham, Sarah and Isaac" as a "similitude and example" must be explained.
The two obvious questions that we should be addressing are:
1) "WHY", when the Mosaic Law was in place and paramount for "righteousness, tsĕdaqah", (Deuteronomy 6:25.), would God then instruct and direct those that seek Him, to look to Abraham and Sarah for "righteousness, tsedeq", in Isaiah 51:1.?
2) "Why didn't God direct everyone to "look to Moses"?"
The answers to both questions are provided by Paul within Galatians 4:21. through 5:1..
Above you quote Galatians 4:28.;
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."
Let's look at the above verse to see exactly what Paul is referring to here. What do we know and can say with confidence that would be "fact"?
Though "Isaac" was Abraham's and Sarah's "firstborn son" of Promise, (and in being "their firstborn" son together, Isaac establishes his own "birthright"), we also know that Isaac is (Abram)/Abraham's "second born" son.
By that, since we know that Abraham symbolically represents a "type" of God the Father, we can also conclude that "Isaac" symbolically represents a "type" of Jesus, the true fulfillment of Promise, and that JESUS (like Isaac) has established HIS own "BIRTHRIGHT", (or Covenant) as well.
So the "brethren" above must also encompass all of the above.
First for us to be "brethren", we must be "born of the Spirit" and also become "second born" (like Isaac) and a "New Creation" and be granted access to the "BIRTHRIGHT", (or Covenant) of Jesus .
This is achieved through "Faith and Belief" in Jesus.
Second, to be like "Isaac and a child of Promise", "brethren" would also mean that you are considered by God, to be a "figurative child" of Abraham's and Sarah's.
Galatians 3:6,7.;
"Even as Abraham Believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of Faith, the same are the children of Abraham."
Now before continuing further, I would like to know whether or not you fully agree with the above?
And I also have a request.
Could you please provide me with what you believe, a "definition" of "Torah" would be?
Hi Marianne,
Yes the "Tenach" or "Tanakh" refers to "all Old Testament text".
It is an acronym for "Torah" (law), Nevi'im, (prophets) and Ketuvim (writings), and as you say, "Torah" is technically, or "generally" referring to the first five books that were scribed by Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
However many people when the hear the word "Torah" immediately associate and "limit" that word, to be referencing the "Mosaic Law".
(Many unfortunately do the very same thing whenever they see the word "Commandment" too.)
The "Mosaic Law" just happens to be included within the last four books, but "Torah" has a far broader scope than simply that.
Specifically, Torah the Hebrew "תּוֹרָה", transliterated as "tôwrâh", is defined primarily in its noun form, as "law, direction and instruction".
Tôwrâh being derived from the Hebrew root verb, "יָרָה", transliterated as "yârâh", is primarily defined as to "shoot an arrow and to hit the mark".
Together then, tôwrâh can be defined as "to shoot out" in respects to "pointing or leading to show", "to direct", "to teach and instruct", or "to lay foundations" to "hit the mark".
Therefore by that definition, the first recorded tôwrâh issued to man in scripture, would be the Commandments of Genesis 1:28-30., which are thousands and thousands of years before Sinai, and the revelation of the Mosaic Law.
You recognize and acknowledge this yourself where you say;
"Sometimes Torah can refer to the entire tenach, with the concept that God's law and will is present in all books of the bible in some form or another."
Though I would express that slightly different by saying;
"Torah is present throughout the whole of the Bible, (both Old and New), because God's Will "IS" present within all Books."
Just because the language in which each was written has changed, (from Hebrew and Aramaic to Greek), does not detract from a "Commandment from God" in one, carrying any less weight, than a "Commandment from God" in the other.
A "Commandment from God the Father" "IS" a "Commandment from God the Father."
And since everything that Jesus said, came directly from God the Father, (Deuteronomy 18:15. & 18,19., John 3:34., 8:26.,28. & 47., 12:49,50., 14:10.,24., 17:8. & Hebrews 1:1,2.), then that should only further confirm, that everything that Jesus expressed as a Commandment is also Torah as "law, direction and instruction", and is a Commandment from God the Father.
Regarding Amos 3:7.
Amos 3:7., is simply relevant to everything.
If God says that He will do NOTHING unless He FIRST reveals what He is going to do, then He CAN'T DO what He wants to do UNTIL He actually expresses that desire FIRST.
(I posted the definition to Amos 3:7. above in the beginning of my reply to dmcal52 on Nov. 9th. @ 7:34am. in what looks like comment 360889.)
And God does this through Paul, where Paul explains in detail within Galatians 4:21. through 5:1., "what" the whole historical account of Abram, Hagar and Ishmael, and Abraham, Sarah and Isaac, actually represents in being a "symbolic foreshadowing", and a "similitude and example".
If Paul through the Holy Spirit, hadn't explained "what all of this actually means", then not only would God NOT be able to perform it, "we" simply would never have understood it, and because it is so "deep", we would have probably never made the connection in the first place.
So, we have TWO sons that came from the same FATHER, where one son, "Ishmael" represents antichrist, what is not saved, "flesh" and the lack of the fulfillment of Promise". Being the child of Hagar, "Ishmael" also represents the birth of "slavery and bondage".
And we have the other son, "Isaac" who represents Christ, Spirit, Salvation, and the fulfillment of "Promise". Being the child of Sarah, "Isaac" also represents the birth of "freedom and liberty".
Now in that context, apply these two sons to just the verses of Galatians 4:22.– 25..
What do you understand from this?
Hi Marianne,
I had come to this site initially, (a month or so ago) to see whether or not, the significance that God places on "Firsts and Seconds" had also been possibly revealed to others?
When while here then, I read some of the posts on another page, and replied to one that dmcal52 had made in respects to the same topic of discussion that I addressed here on "Seals Overlap".
Where I attempted to explain, in both instances, that if 1 Corinthians 10:1-11. and what happened to ethnic Israel was an example for the Church, then by logical extension, just like God only called a "remnant" of Israel to the truth of Jesus, only a "remnant" of the Church will be accounted worthy for the "first resurrection",
(Revelation 3:7-12., a Church of Overcomers.
Revelation 3:14-19., a Church that is wretched, miserable, poor, blind and naked and being "spit out").
I had returned this last time to see whether or not, the aspect of being "barren" had also possibly been revealed to others?
Being "barren" like, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, Rachel, Manoah's wife the mother of Samson, etc. etc., is "symbolic and foreshadows" many different things.
For one, it foreshadows that God Himself had no legitimate (human) children after the implementation of the Mosaic Law.
(Moses himself, (after his error with the Rock at Kadesh) had to be retrieved, (through compassion and mercy) by the Archangel Michael from Satan, [Jude 1:9.].
Even King David hasn't ascended to heaven yet, [Acts 2:34,35.].
And Romans 3:9-18. clearly states that "not one man" was "righteous" prior to Jesus.)
Which means, that the aspect of being "barren" foreshadows, that God must perform Divine Intervention by providing His Son, where through Jesus, "children of adoption" may then be attained, and where ultimately, the Promise that He had made (Genesis 3:15., Genesis 22:18.) would then be fully realized.
Like the significance that God places on "First and Seconds" there is so much more that I could provide and comment on regarding the scope and substance of being "barren".
Then, while still in the process of demonstrating how "multifaceted in meaning" and "polysemantic" God's Word can be, (and to how this also testifies to the validity of the "definition" that I have provided above for Amos 3:7.), "YOU" replied to "me".
And it was during the course of our discussion, when I had asked you, "Who "Ishmael" symbolically represents as Abram/(Abraham's) firstborn son", and you didn't automatically respond with "ethnic Israel", that I realized that you don't fully understand the passages of Galatians 4:21 through 5:1..
Normally I wouldn't consider this to be a "big deal", since "none of us", (myself included) has the capacity to fully understand the totality of God and His Word.
However, these particular passages express a "foundational tenet" of the "Gospel of Jesus", and to our walk in Faith.
So I enquired as to what your "interpretation" of those passages consists of on, "November 16th. @ 9:40 pm." and asked you, "I am wondering as to how you personally interpret the text of Galatians 4:21. through to 5:1.?"
However in your reply the next day, you chose to not comply with my request, and instead culled out and quoted only two verses, without providing any context or specificity in respect to those verses. (?)
So…. because these passages express such an "important foundational tenet", I pressed forward by providing you with additional "hints" and "clues".
(Where interestingly, everything that I have said, (with the exception of my post regarding "allah") also has relevance to Galatians 4:21. through 5:1.)
I then requested that you, "apply these two sons to just the verses of Galatians 4:22.– 25.", and I again asked, What do you understand from this?", where no further response from you has been forthcoming. (?)
Now, though I could provide you with what specifically, each and every verse is expressing, I have found in the past, that the results of doing this, are much like providing someone "advise".
"Advice" can be taken, or simply tossed aside, depending upon the recipient.
However when something is revealed by the Spirit, we then have an "A-ha" moment which can't be denied.
So I would like to let you know, that this is no longer between You and I.
(I am leaving, and continuing on with my studies and to where God leads me.)
You know in your heart whether you actually understand these "passages", and better yet, "God knows" too.
So whether you "choose" to delve into these passages or not, is solely between "You and God".
James says in James 1:5,6.;
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.", because true revelation and interpretation can only be provided by the Spirit of Truth, (1 Corinthians 2:10-16.).
It is my hope that you do "choose" to do so, and that through the Spirit you receive the full understanding of what it is that Father God is expressing in regards to these passages. In doing so, it should also provide you with better insight in being able to "Edify the Church" on your site, (which I hope is also the "heart of your mandate" for this site overall).
If you do, remember that there are "two sons" and "two Covenants" from the same "Father (God)", and that it is "Sarah" that is married and has the husband, and keep in mind, "That it is virtually impossible to be both, "Isaac" and "Ishmael" at the same time", so one should "choose" to be one son, or the other. Hence what Paul says in Galatians 5:1.
God Bless.
Hi Marianne,
I forgot that I hadn't provided the information that I said that I would provide, regarding the "Two Resurrection's" of those that have "faith" in Jesus, that are foreshadowed in the Old Testament, (or "First" Covenant).
I'll try to provide them over the next week or so here on "Seals Overlap" before I go.
However, I did notice that You and Shoshanna are having a discussion with an individual named Jacob on "YHVH, Behold, the man, behold the nail."
Where it appears that he holds to the belief in the "Oneness of God", the same as Judaism, (and interestingly, the same as Islam).
Perhaps you could utilize some of the following within that discussion to provide him with some insight?
(I don't wish to get involved lol.)
Judaism is "the monotheistic religion of the Jewish people", and those that have converted to the "Jewish faith".
Which would consist of individuals that don't believe that Jesus is the Saviour, and who are "firstborns", not being indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
Those that practice Judaism, read the text of Creation, (Genesis Ch.1 to 2:3.), and because they haven't been blessed with the knowledge from the Second Covenant text, they simply accept 'Elohiym as being just another Name for YHVH. (You may too, so please bare with me.)
The paradox here is, though it IS another Name…. IT's not.
Though indeed ONE, ('Elohiym is YHVH, Exodus 6:2., John 1:1.) THEY the THREE are distinct.
'Elohiym in the Divine personage of Jesus is unique.
For example, those that practice Judaism, will read Scripture from the Old Covenant such as this excerpt from Joel 2:32.;
"that whosoever shall call on the name of the "LORD, (YHVH)" shall be delivered",
and believe because they trust in YHVH, that they will go to heaven and be with Him when they die.
Unfortunately however, they have no idea that the entirety of this verse is prophetic.
Joel 2:32.;
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD (JESUS) shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD (YHVH) hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD (YHVH) shall call." (Father God's calling, John 6:44. & 65.)
Though this verse has duality of meaning, in not having any knowledge of what is written and spoken by YHVH through Jesus and the Apostle's within the Second Covenant text, they have no idea that this verse is referring specifically to that of "Jesus", and "Calling on His Name".
Simply see, "Acts 2:21. & 4:10-12., Romans 10:9-13., and John 14:1-6." for a verification of that truth.
Therefore though ONE, there is indeed a distinction.
As opposed to those that practice Judaism, We however are "second born", by being indwelt with the Holy Spirit, and know from the Second Covenant text of, John 1:1-3., 1 Corinthians 8:6., Ephesians 3:9., Colossians 1:16,17., and Hebrews 1:2., & 2:10., that Jesus is, The Word, and The Creator 'Elohiym.
If when John in referring to Jesus says that "All things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made", and Paul backs that up by saying in referring to Jesus, "by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him" etc. etc., then it is only reasonable to conclude that The Creator 'Elohiym is Jesus. They are One and the same.
I would like to propose the following:
Within the New Second Covenant YHVH is referred to as, "Father God".
Father God is invisible and is Spirit, (Colossians 1:15. and John 4:24.).
'Elohiym is also YHVH, (Exodus 6:2. and John 1:1.) but is the portion of Divinity that manifests Himself on earth.
'Elohiym has manifested Himself in many different forms and personages throughout scripture.
And it is by recognizing this distinction, that a greater understanding of many different things can be received.
Hi Marianne,
Well, we are all welcome to have our own opinion, (which vary greatly from one end of the spectrum to the other) but they can't all be right. (?)
Isn't God's Word comprised of "truth", and isn't it our responsibility to discover that "truth", amongst all of the so called opinions?
I have participated on sites like yours in the past, and unfortunately came to the following conclusion….
"That peoples opinions have "taken over and superseded", the act of being a Berean."
The following is not to be understood in anyway as to being accusatory, so please don't be offended, I simply believe it to be fact;
"I feel that it is safe to say, that while in the process of reading what I had written above, you came across something that you either didn't fully understand, or that differed from what you currently believe, (which is the basis that forms your opinion). And from that moment forward, you basically disregarded what I had written, (having deemed it to be inaccurate), and not once "searched the scriptures" (that I had provided) as a Berean."
Because I can clearly see by what you say within your response….
"The Father (YHVH) worked through Jesus ('Elohiym) to create ….so the source of power to create is the Father (YHVH), but the administrator ('Elohiym) who carries out the creative process is Jesus ('Elohiym)."
…. that you didn't fully understand what I was saying above, because rather than being contradictory, your comment actually agrees and confirms plurality and the distinction where "Two" are in relationship.
"YHVH is the Source", and "'Elohiym is the Instrument".
Allow for me to present all of this from a different, (Spirit) perspective.
Question; "What is the only available means through which "we" as mere man, receive the opportunity to approach YHVH or Father God?"
The answer of course, simply based upon what Jesus Himself says in John 14:6., is "only" through "Him'.
So we "FIRST" believe and have faith in "Jesus", where through "Grace" we are then granted access to "His Righteousness" so we can then approach YHVH or Father God.
Now within our previous discussions, I have already provided numerous examples of how Father God has equipped us with symbolic foreshadowing's within scripture, that express that He will perform Divine Intervention and provide mere man with His Son, The Messiah.
Adam foreshadowing a "type" of Messiah.
Cain, Able and Seth, foreshadowing a "type" of Messiah.
Abram foreshadowing ethnic Israel and "Melchizedek" foreshadowing a "type" of Messiah.
Abraham being a "type" of Father God (YHVH) and Isaac foreshadowing a "type" of Messiah.
Where I could go on and on and provide hundreds, if not possibly thousands of these "symbolic foreshadowing" examples.
Therefore, if Father God has provided us with all of the above, and in doing so, demonstrated as to how incomprehensibly proficient He is in His Word, wouldn't He ALSO provide "symbolic foreshadowing's" regarding the aspect of;
"JESUS FIRST, then GRACE and RIGHTEOUSNESS, then being able to APPROACH YHVH or FATHER GOD?
Above in my last post I said…
"And it is by recognizing this distinction, that a greater understanding of many different things can be received."
Would it be merely coincidence then, that Adam was created in the image of 'Elohiym (Genesis 1:26,27. and 5:1.), BEFORE the the first time the LORD (YHVH) is mentioned by Name within Genesis 2:4.?
Was it merely coincidence, that Enoch walked with 'Elohiym, (Genesis 5:22-23.), and it was 'Elohiym that "took" (laqach, caught up, seized) Enoch to YHVH, (Jesus to God the Father), where Enoch would now have relationship with both, YHVH and 'Elohiym. (Hebrews 11:5.)?
Or better yet, was it merely coincidence that, Noah, because he walked with 'Elohiym, was "just, tsaddiyq" (Genesis 6:9.), therefore he found "GRACE" in the eyes of YHVH, (Genesis 6:8.).
And, because Noah obeyed all of the Commandments from 'Elohiym, regarding building the Ark, preparing the food for themselves, and all of the birds and animals, consisting of two, both male and female, (Genesis 6:13-22.), YHVH could then declare Noah as being "Righteous, also tsaddiyq", (Genesis 7:1. & Hebrews 11:7.).
It was then that Noah had relationship with YHVH, and Noah, (after he had been declared as being righteous) then received separate Commandments from YHVH, where YHVH expanded upon the Commandments from 'Elohiym, to gather seven of every clean animal, both male and female, and specified that instead of just two birds of male and female, to increase that number to seven as well, (Genesis 7:1-4.), which Noah then fulfilled, (Genesis 7:5.).
Then we have Abram, who "symbolically represents" ethnic Israel, where we have a very significant foreshadowing and a major shift in paradigm.
Abram is the very FIRST individual in scripture that has relationship with YHVH FIRST, (Genesis 12:1. through 14:17., where only YHVH is mentioned).
And though Abram fulfilled and obeyed each and every Commandment made to him by YHVH, (see my post 361041 of November 13th. @ 12:45 am.) it was ONLY after the appearance of "Melchizedek" that Abram could then be declared as being "Righteous".
(Is this merely coincidence too?)
All of the above, do more than "symbolically foreshadow" that the belief and faith in JESUS CHRIST comes FIRST, then through GRACE, the state or position of RIGHTEOUSNESS, where through that, we are then able to APPROACH YHVH or FATHER GOD.
And like the "symbolic foreshadowing's" regarding Father God providing us with His Son, (where I could go on and on and provide hundreds, if not possibly thousands of examples), I could also continue on here as well.
Therefore though ONE, (John 1:1.), they are also distinct.
If They weren't distinct from One another, then not would all of the above be redundant and have no meaning whatsoever, but there would have never been a need or necessity for Father God to provide us with His Son.
Because all that believe in YHVH, (whether they happened to believe in Jesus or not), would as Joel 2:32. states, "BE SAVED".
And that is completely contrary to our Faith, and everything that is provided by Father God within the New Second Covenant text.
Above you also make the statement, "in the burning bush, when asked his name, elohim answered "I am", not YHVH as a name."
Well you're correct there, at that specific time 'Elohiym didn't introduce Himself to Moses as YHVH, but He does later in Exodus 6:2.;
"And 'Elohiym spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the YHVH:"
The reason that Rabbinical Judaism doesn't recognize any of this, is because they're attempting to decipher the "Word of God" "carnally" as "firstborns of flesh", since they don't possess "God's Spirit".
If we don't utilize God's Spirit when we read the Word, we do the same thing, and aren't receptive to the scope and depth of "what" God the Father is actually expressing in His Word.
We must always remain conscious of seeking God's Truth through the Spirit, otherwise we simply decipher scripture in the same carnal, fleshy, means of interpretation.
"Yes" "They" are One as I said above.
But do you understand that "They" are also distinct.
If "They" weren't distinct from One another, then not would all of the above be redundant and have no meaning whatsoever, but there would have never been a need or necessity for Father God to provide us with His Son.
Because all that believe in YHVH, (whether they happened to believe in Jesus or not), would as Joel 2:32. states, "BE SAVED".
And that is completely contrary to our Faith, and everything that is provided by Father God within the New Second Covenant text.
Oh and did you happen to catch the above when you skimmed it over?
Above you also make the statement, "in the burning bush, when asked his name, elohim answered "I am", not YHVH as a name."
Well you're correct there, at that specific time 'Elohiym didn't introduce Himself to Moses as YHVH, but He does later in Exodus 6:2.;
"And 'Elohiym spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the YHVH:"
That was shorter 🙂
Hi Marianne,
I believe that the Spirit is ever-present at all times as well.
But since we are both on the same page regarding the "Three being One", yet at the same time, being "distinct" from One Another, I would really appreciate it if you could find the time to really read and contemplate over what I had written above in that last post.
Regarding "'ê-lāw" or "אֵלָיו" , spelled Aleph, Lamed, Yod and Vav.
It is my understanding that 'ê-lāw is a preposition. (?)
And that "'ĕ·lō·hê " or "אֱלֹהֵ֖י", spelled Aleph, Lamed, Hey and Yod, (or 'elohiym, "אֱלֹהִים" minus the Mem) is what is translated as "goddess" depending upon context, such as in 1 Kings 11:5. and 11:33.
Am I incorrect in that understanding?
Hi Marianne,
"Okay then" regarding the above Hebrew.
Any way's,
"Why" I hope that you'll really take the time to contemplate over what I had written in that post, is because YOU DO RECOGNIZE and ACKNOWLEDGE that though ONE, THEY ARE DISTINCT.
(And I also hope that you'll take into account the "list of Commandments that YHVH had given Abram, which Abram fulfilled and obeyed, yet still wasn't declared by YHVH to be "Righteous", [which I've listed in my post of 361041 on November 13th. @ 12:45 am.])
Many people DON'T recognize this "FACT", and therefore miss some very significant aspects of what is being said within the Fathers Word.
Look at Genesis 17:1,2.
"And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD (YHVH) appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before Me, and be thou perfect. And I will make My covenant between Me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly."
Now I'm not going to go into specific detail regarding "שַׁדַּי אֵל" being translated in the King James as "Almighty God" here.
It's sufficient to know, as per Exodus 6:3., that this was the Name that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew the Divine as, and that Moses had scribed what he had, with intention and purpose as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Let's just concentrate on the "distinctiveness" between "YHVH and 'Elohiym" for the moment.
So above we have YHVH saying to Abram, "If you'll walk "perfectly" before Me, ("tamiym", completely and entirely whole, without blemish) then I will make My Covenant between us, and will multiply you greatly."
Then we have in Genesis 17:3-5.
"And Abram fell on his face: and God ('Elohiym) talked with him, saying As for Me, behold, My Covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee."
Here we have 'Elohiym making an ENTIRELY SEPARATE Covenant.
So much so, that 'Elohiym even changes Abram's name to Abraham, and Sarai's name to Sarah.
YHVH's Covenant is relevant to "ethnic Israel", (ie; Genesis 12:2. & 7. and 13:14-16.) which are all promises made to Abram by YHVH prior to the appearance of Melchizedek.
I believe that I have provided substantial evidence within my post of 361018, on November 12th. @ 7:04 am. that Abram "symbolically foreshadows" ethnic Israel throughout Genesis 12:1. to 14:17..
Abram, "אַבְרָם", transliterated as "'Avram", means "Exalted Father", and Abram was the Father of ethnic Israel.
Then it was YHVH that made the promises of Genesis 15:4,5. yet this promise consists of "duality of meaning".
YHVH knew full well that 'Elohiym would establish His Covenant with Isaac. That wasn't a change in plans that They made Together on the fly.
Though YHVH could have told Abram at that time, that he and Sarah would conceive a son together by Divine Intervention, He didn't so that Abram and Hagar would conceive Ishmael for a specific purpose.
The "FIRST" Covenant of promise that YHVH makes to Abram within Genesis 15:7-21. only further substantiates that this particular Covenant is regarding ethnic Israel.
However now, 'Elohiym changes Abram's name to Abraham and and Sarai's name to Sarah.
Abraham, "אַבְרָהָם", transliterated as "'Avraham", means "Father of Multitudes, or, Nations".
And Sarah, "שָׂרָה", transliterated as "Sarah", means, "Princess of Nations".
And it is 'Elohiym that now makes His Covenant with Abraham regarding Isaac, and reveals to Abraham that he and Sarah will conceive a Son, by what is stated within the narrative of the text, obviously through Divine Intervention, (Genesis 17:15-17. and most importantly verse 19.)
Isaac of course is the "child of promise" who symbolically foreshadows "Christ, Spirit, Salvation, the fulfillment of Promise" and the ONE TRUE SEED.
Since you requested that make my posts shorter, I'll sign off here for today for the above is a lot to absorb.
(I have found in the past, that this is simply too deep for many to fully understand.)
However, if you are following along and are understanding the above, then that is great.
Because all of this is relevant to so many things, not the least of which is the error of the Rabbinical understanding of Genesis 26:5., but also in it's relevance to Galatians 4:21. through 5:1. that I spoke of earlier.
God Bless
Hi Marianne,
Actually, I addressed this in my previous comment to you, 361120 on November 15th. @ 8:13 pm. where I said;
"First in defense of Abram, (before God changed his name to Abraham), though Abram knew that he would father an heir, (Genesis 15:4.), he wasn't yet aware when he and Hagar conceived "Ishmael" that the promise of that heir, would be a son through Sarah, (Genesis 17:16.,19.,21. & 18:10.,14.)."
Though you say "the Lord told abraham and sarah that sarah would have a child, long before hagar was asked to bear a son for abraham", THAT is Biblically inaccurate.
Please be a Berean and simply read the text of "Genesis 15:4. then Genesis 17:16.,19.,21. & 18:10.,14." to confirm the truth to what I am saying.
Hi Marianne,
After Abram asks the question, "What will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" and then also says regarding Eliezer, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!"
YHVH then says in Genesis 15:4,, "This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir."
YHVH provided no other knowledge to Abram other than "he will father a son that will be his heir".
YHVH said nothing about either Ishmael or Isaac!!!
Ishmael was born to Abram when he was 86 years old, (Genesis 16:16.).
Then 3 years later, 'Elohiym, (after He has just changed Abram's name to Abraham) says in Genesis 17:15-21.;
"And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year."
This is obviously the FIRST time that Abram/Abraham had heard anything regarding Sarai/Sarah providing him with a son and a heir.
It is also the FIRST time that he ever would have heard the name Isaac as well.
Then a conformation of the above takes place in Genesis 18:9-15.;
"And They said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
And He said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And He said, Nay; but thou didst laugh."
Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born to him, Genesis 21:5.
So do you still wish to stick with what you currently believe?
You ask me in your last response, "What is the purpose of this line of questioning?"
So I will answer that question.
"I am attempting to get you to realize, that what you currently believe regarding this topic is incorrect."
Question; Allow for me to just ask you this;
"If in Genesis 15:4., YHVH told ABRAM, (not Abraham) specifics, (or even implied anything) regarding "Isaac", WHY in heavens name did ABRAM name his FIRST son "Ishmael"?
If YHVH had provided ABRAM with any knowledge regarding "Isaac", then to name this son "Ishmael" would be DISOBEDIENT to YHVH.
And being DISOBEDIENT would CONTRADICT Genesis 26:5.;
"Because that Abraham OBEYED My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws."
When ABRAM was 75 and still living in Haran, and YHVH gave him the Commandment to leave, YHVH also said in Genesis 12:2.;
"I will make you a great nation".
Now ABRAM probably wondered what that actually meant.
Could it mean that he and SARAI were going to have children together in the future?
Did he wonder "how and when" YHVH would make him "becoming a great nation" would come to fruition?
Probably, but he hadn't been provided with enough information to know any of the answers to the questions that he may have had.
So, other than possibly thinking the above, ABRAM certainly had no clue regarding anything in respects to either Ishmael or Isaac.
But ABRAM OBEYED and went to Canaan anyway.
Later, when the group of them had made it as far as Shechem, (as far as the terebinth tree of Moreh), YHVH appeared to ABRAM again and said in Genesis 12:7.; "And to your "DESCENDANTS" I will give this land".
So here YHVH had provided ABRAM with a bit more information.
ABRAM must of thought, "YHVH said that He will give my "descendants" this land.
This must mean that I am going to father and have children with SARAI, and that's how I will become a great nation."
But other than possibly thinking this, ABRAM wasn't provided with any other information, (and he certainly had no clue regarding Ishmael or Isaac either).
Later again, after ABRAM and everyone had returned from Egypt to Bethel, where he had pitched his tent and built an altar previously, ABRAM and Lot separated.
After that had occurred, YHVH confirmed what He had said within Genesis 12:7. and provided ABRAM with more information within in Genesis 13:14-17.;
YHVH said to ABRAM, "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to "THY SEED" for ever.
And I will make "THY SEED" as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall "THY SEED" also be numbered.
Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee."
So from the information that YHVH provided ABRAM above, he probably thought, "YES" sometime in the future, SARAI and I are going to have children together, and by "all" that YHVH has said, this great nation that I will father will be innumerable."
But other than possibly thinking this, ABRAM wasn't provided with any other information, (and he certainly had no clue regarding Ishmael or Isaac either).
And then ABRAM OBEYED the Commandment from YHVH within Genesis 13:18..
Now the next time that YHVH spoke to ABRAM was in a vision, where YHVH provides ABRAM with more information regarding him having children.
These specifics are recorded within Genesis 15:1-5..
The first thing that we must understand is, that we aren't provided with how much time has elapsed since ABRAM departed from Haran to this time now.
And though YHVH has basically told ABRAM that he is going to father children THREE times already, by saying that He will "make Abram a great nation" and that ABRAM'S "descendants and seed" will be "innumerable and inherit the land", ABRAM was clearly frustrated.
And Abram expresses this frustration to YHVH, when he says in Genesis 15:2,3.;
"Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir."
In Genesis 15:4., YHVH simply confirms what He has already previously said to ABRAM by saying,
"This shall NOT be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of THINE OWN BOWELS shall be thine heir."
And then YHVH says in Genesis 15:5.;
"Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall THY SEED be."
So though this may have somehow been reassuring to ABRAM, he still HADN'T been provided with any other information that he didn't already know.
In Genesis 15:2., ABRAM is basically saying, "YHVH you said that I would become a father, but as it stands now, the only heir that I have is this steward of mine, Eliezer of Damascus! Where is this son that YOU told me, that would become my heir?"
And ABRAM would have still believed, that somehow this heir would be conceived by his "WIFE" SARAI.
And because this is what ABRAM would have believed, he would of definitely told SARAI all that YHVH had told him regarding an heir.
But since no further information had been provided by YHVH, ABRAM certainly had no clue regarding anything in respects to Ishmael or Isaac.
Now, after 10 years had passed since ABRAM had left Haran and entered Canaan, (Genesis 16:3.), SARAI approaches ABRAM in Genesis 16:2. with a plan.
SARAI is frustrated too, and she says to ABRAM, "Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her."
What Genesis 16:2. confirms, is that ABRAM had indeed told SARAI that YHVH had told him that he would have a son as an heir.
And that ABRAM and SARAI had been attempting to conceive a son, but that conception had been unsuccessful.
So SARAI presented her alternative plan, "That maybe "SHE" might obtain a son through her Egyptian slave Hagar."
SARAI'S rationale and thought process being, "ABRAM, YHVH told you that "YOU" would have an "son and heir".
But HE didn't mention anything about me?
Maybe this "son and heir" is supposed to be provided by Hagar, and it is through her that "I" obtain a son?
And it is ONLY because ABRAM had NOT been provided with any information to the contrary of what SARAI suggested by YHVH, that Abram then listened to what SARAI said, took Hagar as his wife, and then through that SLAVE conceived ISHMAEL.
If ABRAM had been provided with any information by YHVH that SARAI would be the mother of ISAAC, and that ISAAC would be his heir, then he wouldn't have DISOBYED YHVH and bothered with Hagar.
ABRAM would have waited for YHVH to fulfill the promise that He had made.
It is ONLY after 4 years later that the Promise of "ISAAC" is revealed in Genesis 17.
Where you can read again, what I had written previously within my posts of 361276, November 22nd. @ 9:05 pm. and 361285, November 23rd. @ 4:52 am.
You have said above, "There are times I change my opinion as time goes on"
So I ask you again, "Do you still wish to stick with what you currently believe?"
But before you respond, I also have a request.
If you have someone that you respect and admire because of their Biblical knowledge, would you be willing to present to them what you currently believe, and what I have expressed above, to see what their opinion would be regarding "who's" interpretation is more likely to be the truth?
Hi Marianne,
So let me understand this then….
In the span of only 10 days, I have gone from making "good points" and being a "really deep thinker that you appreciate" to now "lacking logic".
I wonder how that occurred?
You know, by "what" you say in all of your replies above, and by "what" you also chose to "not" reply to when requested, actually reveals a significant amount of information regarding "what" you personally believe.
If you were more forthcoming and upfront with your belief on the header of your Home Page, I never would have commented here in the first place.
Nevertheless, you speak about logic, and say in your last reply, "the descendants of Isaac produced the nation of Israel. And after Jesus came, the gentiles were grafted in".
So here's a question;
"If nonbelieving ethnic Israel, is NOT "born of the Spirit and therefore NOT saved", then Jesus came, and Father God called "both Jew and Gentile" to "believe" and to be "born of the Spirit and be saved" and in doing so, become a "new second creation, then WHY would that now "believing and born of the Spirit new creation" be GRAFTED BACK INTO a "nonbelieving ethnic Israel, that is NOT "born of the Spirit, is NOT a "new second creation", and therefore NOT saved"???
Mark 2:21,22.;
"No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; or else the new piece pulls away from the old, and the tear is made worse.And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine bursts the wineskins, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins."
"I am NOT grafted into ethnic Israel – I AM GRAFTED INTO CHRIST!"
"CHRIST IS the ROOT", NOT "nonbelieving ethnic Israel, that is NOT "born of the Spirit" is NOT a "new second creation" and NOT saved!"
I am a "figurative" child of Abraham and Sarah's, and I am "blessed" like Abraham because I live by Faith.
There is a big difference between something "being extremely complex and difficult to follow" and being right or wrong.
I had already stated previously, that this "new information" was very hard to articulate, and that it was also difficult to comprehend.
When I have asked you questions, it has not necessarily been "putting you to the test", but rather has more to do with what I had stated earlier regarding "advise", which can be taken or tossed aside.
If I simply tell you something, you can choose to receive it or not.
However if I lead you down a path, where by logical extension you arrive at "the answer", it carries far more weight than if I simply told you.
I am curious though as to why you chose to not answer my last question directly, but chose instead to simply provide scripture and "start" at Romans 11:13. instead of Romans 11:1.?
I will comment on Romans 11. and the aspect of being "grafted into Christ" tomorrow.
sorry , Marianne, pls delete this ,thanks ! something wrong with this person
sorry , Marianne, pls delete this ,thanks ! something wrong with this person
this thread need to be deleted .sorry !
I will present the following only once. And "YES" it is probably too long.
If you don't agree then that's fine, I won't press the issue and attempt to convince you as I did regarding Ishmael (the Firstborn) and Isaac (the Second born)
I took the liberty to comment on Romans 11:1-16. where if by then, what Paul is saying is not understood, it would be pointless to continue any further.
Regarding Romans 11.
The "first" thing that must be established regarding the "context" of Romans 11, is what had just been stated previously by Paul within Romans 10.
Paul has just said in his chastisement while referring to ethnic Israel, in 10:16.;
"But "THEY" have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "LORD, who has believed our report?" (Isaiah 53:1.)
17. "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
18. "But I say, have "THEY" not heard? Yes indeed: "Their sound has gone out to all the earth, And their words to the ends of the world." (Psalms 19:4.)
19. "But I say, did "ISRAEL" not know? First Moses says: "I will provoke YOU (ISRAEL) to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move YOU (ISRAEL) to anger by a foolish nation." (Deuteronomy 32:21.)
20. "But Isaiah is very bold and says: "I was found by those who did not seek Me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me." (Isaiah 65:1.)
21. "But to "ISRAEL" he says: "All day long I have stretched out My hands To a disobedient and contrary people (ISRAEL)." (Isaiah 65:2.)
Above Paul is clearly chastising "ethnic Israel" by utilizing God's Word from the Old Testament in "context".
He is saying that "THEY" have NOT believed the "Gospel" that "Jesus is the Christ".
And though "Faith" comes by "hearing" and that "hearing" by the Word of God, THEY haven't HEARD, even though THEY had been told by Moses in Deuteronomy 32:21., and by in Isaiah 65:1. "what" would transpire between THEM and God, THEY are still a "disobedient and contrary people" (Isaiah 65:2.).
The "second" thing that must be acknowledged and understood is that the "majority of Jewish individuals" (both when Paul wrote this epistle and today), DON'T believe that "Jesus is the Promised Christ". Hence "why" it was Paul's desire to save "some" of them, (Romans 10:1. and 11:14.).
So having established that "context" let's look at Romans 11: 1 through 5.
1. "I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin."
2. "God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,"
3. "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? (1 Kings 19:10. and 14.)
4. "But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal" (1 Kings 19:18.)
5. "Even so then, "at this present time" there is a "REMNANT" according to the ELECTION OF GRACE."
Now, "what" Paul is expressing above in "context", is that within ethnic Israel, there are "exceptions".
That there have been, and are, "INDIVIDUALS" from ethnic Israel that God has chosen, called and saved by GRACE, that have not been CAST AWAY, or rejected.
He starts above with himself as being a prime example, being an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, and from the tribe of Benjamin, then continues on with the seven thousand from 1 Kings 19:18..
At the time that Paul wrote this, there were thousands of Jews that God had chosen, called through GRACE, who believed in Jesus as being the Christ, yet at that time, "compared" to the totality of the "population" of ethnic Israel, he states that they are only a "REMNANT".
Romans 11:6.;
"And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work."
Here Paul is expressing a dichotomy.
He is saying to believers in Jesus, that neither he or the seven thousand, or any of those Jewish individuals that would fall into the above category of the "REMNANT" were saved by their own ability to fulfill the Mosaic Law. All were chosen to be saved by God solely through GRACE.
The actual Greek Morphological text renders this verse differently than the N.K.J.V. above.
"εἰ δὲ χάριτι οὐκέτι ἐξ ἔργων ἐπεὶ ἡ χάρις οὐκέτι γίνεται χάρις".
Which in turn would transliterate as,
"ei de chariti ouketi ex ergōn epei hē charis ouketi ginetai charis".
And be translated as,
"and if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace no longer becomes grace."
Or in other words;
"If "Jesus is the "end" of the Mosaic Law for righteousness", (Romans 10:4.) and God's Superior Righteousness is now received as a free gift through GRACE, then the hope of attaining righteousness, (where no mere man can be justified or declared to be righteous through the Mosaic Law) is no longer through works of the Mosaic Law. If it were, then GRACE wouldn't be GRACE.
Romans 11:7.;
"What then? "ISRAEL" has not obtained what "IT" seeks; but "THE ELECT" have obtained "IT", and the rest were blinded."
Here Paul, in still speaking of the same group of specific people, expresses a "distinction" between these people, where from this group "the MAJORITY"
(who are JEWISH INDIVIDUALS that Paul refers to as ISRAEL) who have NOT obtained "IT", but others, (who are ALSO JEWISH INDIVIDUALS) that Paul refers to as "THE ELECT" who have obtained "IT".
The question here is;
"What was "IT" that the majority of ethnic Israel had sought that it DIDN'T OBTAIN, but the "ELECT" (the eklogḗ – the act of God's free will by which before the foundation of the world (God's foreknowledge) He decreed his blessings to certain (INDIVIDUAL) persons) DID OBTAIN?"
The answer, would be, "That through GOD'S GRACE, the "ELECT" that were gleaned from ethnic Israel obtained, Justification, Vindication, Reconciliation, Righteousness and Salvation" by their Faith and Belief in JESUS CHRIST.
Therefore Paul is saying that, "Ethnic Israel has NOT obtained the "tsĕdaqah" which it has sought through the Mosaic Law, but by the act of "God's free will", the "ELECT", (eklogē – those INDIVIDUALS that God has chosen) HAVE obtained "Gods righteousness" through GRACE, and that the rest of those JEWISH INDIVIDUALS that WEREN'T chosen from "ethnic Israel", were blinded."
Which is confirmed within the very next verse.
Romans 11:8.;
"Just as it is written: "God has given "THEM" a spirit of stupor, Eyes that they should not see And ears that they should not hear,To this very day."
(Deuteronomy 29:4. and Isaiah 29:10.)
The "THEM" above is referring to the "REMAINING INDIVIDUALS" of ethnic Israel that God DIDN'T choose by "ELECTION – eklogḗ".
These "individuals" DON'T believe that Jesus is the Christ. "They" are NOT Saved or born of God's Spirit, and "They" are NOT a New Second Creation.
Romans 11:9.,10.;
"And David says: "Let "THEIR" table become a snare and a trap, A stumbling block and a recompense to "THEM". Let "THEIR" eyes be darkened, so that "THEY" do not see, And bow down "THEIR" back always."" (Psalms 69:22.,23.)
Above Paul is utilizing what David says in Psalms 69:22.,23. to further support what God had said within Deuteronomy 29:4., 32:21. and Isaiah 29:10., 53:1. and 65:2..
Romans 11:11.;
"I say then, have THEY stumbled that THEY should fall? Certainly not! But through THEIR fall, to provoke THEM to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles."
When Paul is referring to the "THEY", "THEIR" and "THEM" above, he is referring to "the REMAINING INDIVIDUALS of ethnic Israel" that have still NOT believed in the "Gospel that Jesus is the Christ".
The first "fall" in this verse is from the Greek, πέσωσιν – piptō, or "perish and be lost".
The second "fall" is from the Greek, παραπτώματι – paraptōma, or "transgression, or deviation from truth and uprightness".
Therefore Paul has just questioned, "I say then, have "the REMAINING INDIVIDUALS of ethnic Israel" stumbled that THEY should "perish and be lost"?
And he answers that question with a resounding "Certainly not!"
So what would have to occur for any of these "remaining Jewish individuals" to NOT "perish and be lost"?
Like anyone else on this planet, that " Jewish Individual" would have to accept JESUS CHRIST as their SAVIOUR.
Romans 11:12.;
"Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more "THEIR FULLNESS"!"
Now, where many people make the mistake here, is by presuming that when Paul refers to what is ethnic Israel as a WHOLE, they then conclude that the "how much more their fullness" is also referring to encompassing the WHOLE of ethnic Israel, rather than it referring to specific INDIVIDUALS.
That error is tantamount to me saying, "I am a Gentile and have been called by God and saved by Grace, subsequently then, ALL GENTILES have been called by God and saved by Grace", which is absurd.
If that were the case, then what would be the point of Paul stating twice within Romans 10:1. and 11:14. that he hopes to save SOME OF THEM?
That understanding would ALSO contradict Isaiah 10:22,23..
What Paul is saying is;
That if a former "unbelieving individual" of ethnic Israel that had "fallen" and been "cast away", NOW has Faith and Believes in JESUS being the CHRIST, then "how much more THEIR (that specific individuals) fullness" in being accepted as a new second creation within the Body of JESUS.
Romans 11:13.,14.;
"For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy "THOSE" who are my flesh and save some of "THEM"."
"THOSE" and "THEM" obviously referring to Paul's "flesh" or his genealogical heritage of "ethnic Israel" that DON'T yet have Faith and Belief in JESUS.
Romans 11:15.;
"For if THEIR being CAST AWAY is the reconciling of the world, what will THEIR acceptance be but LIFE FROM THE DEAD?"
Again, what would have to occur for any of these "remaining Jewish individuals" to NOT be "CAST AWAY" and receive "LIFE rather than DEATH"?
Like anyone else on this planet, that " Jewish Individual" would have to accept JESUS CHRIST as their SAVIOUR.
So Paul is stating that it is his desire to "SAVE some individuals of ethnic Israel" that have been CAST AWAY, and he is telling the Gentiles believer's, that when those Jewish individuals become SAVED, "THEY" will also receive LIFE rather than DEATH, (where "death" would be their current condition, just like anyone else on the planet without the SAVING GRACE OF JESUS, because these non-believers, [Jewish or not] are still in THEIR SIN).
Paul is NOT contradicting what he says within Romans 11:1. regarding being "CAST AWAY".
All individuals, "JEW'S and GENTILE'S" must be Saved by JESUS CHRIST and HIS GRACE.
Those that DON'T accept JESUS as their SAVIOUR are LOST period.
Now it is here that we arrive at what is the "point of contention".
Whether we are grafted into "non-believing ethnic Israel" that is STILL IN THEIR SIN, or whether CHRISTIANS are grafted INTO CHRIST.
Romans 11:16.;
"For if the FIRSTFRUIT is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the ROOT is holy, so are the BRANCHES."
So what have we been told by Paul, (from Romans 10:16. through to Romans 11:16.), where Paul has utilized the Word of God from past Prophets, regarding "ethnic Israel"?
That "THEY" have not ALL obeyed the gospel, Isaiah 53:1..
That "THEY" didn't understand what Moses said in Deuteronomy 32:21., or what God said through Isaiah within Isaiah 65:1..
That "THEY" are a "disobedient and contrary people", Isaiah 65:2..
That God has given "THEM" a spirit of Stupor, Eyes that they should not see, and Ears that they should not hear,to this very day." Deuteronomy 29:4. and Isaiah 29:10..
That "THEIR" table has become a snare and a trap, and a stumbling block and recompense to "THEM". And "THEIR" eyes have been darkened, so that "THEY" do not see, and that "THEY" bow down "THEIR" back always. Psalms 69:22.,23..
Furthermore, we know that ethnic Israel by NOT believing that JESUS is the CHRIST, have NOT been SAVED, are NOT born of the SPIRIT, are NOT a New second Creation in CHRIST, and have NOT received the FORGIVENESS of HIS SHED BLOOD, so THEY are then consequently, STILL IN THEIR SIN.
So HOW is it possible for THEM to be a HOLY FIRSTFRUIT?
We know that God had made it clear, that for ethnic Israel to be considered to be a "HOLY PEOPLE", they first had to FULFILL the Mosaic Law Covenant.
This without error execution of the Mosaic Law Covenant was their responsibility and subsequent conditionality, for that "HOLY PEOPLE" designation to come to fruition.
There is Exodus 19:6., where God says that ethnic Israel will be a HOLY NATION "IF" they "will obey His voice and keep His Covenant", Exodus 19:5..
There is Deuteronomy 7:6., where Moses tells ethnic Israel that they are a HOLY PEOPLE "IF" they "love God and keep His Commandments to a thousand generations" Deuteronomy 7:9., and "keep the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments" Deuteronomy 7:11..
There is Deuteronomy 14:2., which is in the midst of a long and extensive list of conditionality which must be fulfilled, as is Deuteronomy 26:19., and 28:9., which is followed by Deuteronomy 28:13., "IF" ethnic Israel "listens to the Commandments of God, and observes them ALL, and does them ALL".
Ethnic Israel was UNABLE to accomplish this, so THEY by NOT believing in JESUS, are NOT a HOLY PEOPLE. (See 1 Peter 2:7-10.)
HE was the very FIRSTFRUIT of man TO BE HOLY.
JESUS was raised on Reishit Katzir the day following the first day of Unleavened Bread, the "beginning of the Harvest" and the "Feast of FIRSTFRUITS".
Paul refers to JESUS as the FIRSTFRUITS again, within 1 Corinthians 15:20-23.
And he refers to believers in Christ as "firstfruits" within 1 Corinthians 16:15., as does James in James 1:18.
All of this is relevant to "FIRSTBORN" as well.
Where Paul refers to JESUS as FIRSTBORN in Romans 8:29.
The "FIRSTBORN over all of creation" in Colossians 1:15. and 18.
The author of Hebrews calls JESUS the FIRSTBORN in Hebrews 1:6., and 12:23.
And John refers to JESUS as the FIRSTBORN from the dead within Revelation 1:5.
CHRISTIAN'S are grafted INTO CHRIST, NOT ethnic Israel.
Marianne and dmcal52,
Look, before I leave here, I would like to say this;
In 1 Corinthians 15:20. Paul says;
"But now Christ is RISEN FROM THE DEAD, and has BECOME the FIRSTFRUITS of those who have fallen asleep."
In Colossians 1:18. Paul says;
"And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD, that in all things He may have the preeminence."
In Revelation 1:5., John says;
"and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, THE FIRSTBORN FROM THE DEAD, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,"
Yet we know, (or at least should know) that JESUS wasn't "LITERALLY", the "first to be raised" from the DEAD.
In the Old First Testament there is…..
1 Kings 17:8-24., where we have Elijah raising a child that was DEAD.
in 2 Kings 4:8-37., we have Elisha, raising a child that was DEAD.
In 2 Kings 13:21., we have a man that was DEAD, (when while in the process of being buried in Elisha's tomb), he touched the bones of Elisha and was raised from the DEAD.
In the New Second Testament there is….
Within Matthew 9:18-26., Mark 5:22-43., and Luke 8:41-56., we have JESUS raising Jairus's 12 year old daughter FROM the DEAD.
Then in John 11:1-44., JESUS raises His dear friend Lazarus of Bethany, FROM the DEAD.
So above there a 5 examples which serve to demonstrate that JESUS wasn't "LITERALLY", the "first to be raised" FROM the DEAD.
However the Word of God is true, therefore "JESUS was and is, "THE FIRSTFRUITS and FIRSTBORN" FROM the DEAD.
Which then means, that THIS is signifying something OTHER than the 5 examples above.
When you both come to understand WHAT the "FIRSTFRUITS and FIRSTBORN FROM the DEAD" actually means, and HOW it was possible for JESUS to receive the designation of being without "BLEMISH" or "SPOT" and as being "WITHOUT SIN", (2 Corinthians 5:21., Hebrews 4:15., 7:26,27., 9:14., 1 Peter 1:19., 2:22., and 1 John 3:5.), while HE was ALSO born under the MOSAIC LAW, (Galatians 4:4.), then you just might make the connection that, JESUS was the very FIRST Man (as the Second Adam) to ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING that NO man had done before.
I believe that this is true. There are many people who believe this.
For dmcal52,
Though I had stated that I would not post here anymore, I feel that the weight of what I have tried to convey regarding "Firsts and Seconds" and the significance that God places upon them, overrides my previous comment, and I will leave with this.
First I would like to apologize to You for jumping to the conclusion that you were also a "Law-Keeper".
When you didn't contend for the faith and disagree with Marianne and her beliefs, I assumed that this was also your belief as well.
It has been my experience that ONLY "Law-Keepers" hold to the belief that "Christians are grafted into ethnic Israel, rather than into Christ".
(What Law-Keepers don't appear to understand is, that this belief of being "grafted into ethnic Israel" holds true for them, and that they have made that choice of their own accord.)
Where she and I reached an impasse, was regarding her belief that "Abram had been informed by YHVH about "Isaac" long before ever conceiving "Ishmael" with Hagar" where her belief is without foundation, and contradicts scripture.
Paul says in Galatians 3:8.;
"And the SCRIPTURE, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the GOSPEL to Abraham beforehand, saying, "IN YOU ALL THE NATIONS SHALL BE BLESSED."
Above Paul is referring to "Specific Verses of God's Word within the Old First Covenant text", where "ABRAHAM received the knowledge of the Gospel".
And these "Specific Verses" which state, "IN YOU ALL THE NATIONS SHALL BE BLESSED" were NOT revealed to ABRAM, but only to ABRAHAM, and they occur within Genesis 18:18. & 22:18., and are 13 years after Abram and the slave Hagar had "Ishmael".
It is only when God reveals the significance of "Firsts and Seconds" that you then understand "why" ABRAM'S name HAD to be changed to ABRAHAM BEFORE this GOSPEL could be revealed to him.
Secondly, in respect to answering your following 3 questions;
"What in the world is your point? Do you ever just get to the point of anything? What are you trying to prove?"
Though I do not understand "why" you appear to be so upset, I will provide for you the "definition for rhetoric" and ask you a few questions of my own.
Primarily, "rhetoric" describes a "skill or ability" that an individual possesses, which allows for them to either speak or write effectively by utilizing various verbal or compositional techniques."
Two Questions for You;
If by providing Biblical evidence to a Jewish individual, (which a Christian would consider to be conclusive evidence that Jesus is the Christ), and that Jewish individual still does not comprehend that evidence, does their inability to understand that "rhetoric" diminish its truth whatsoever?
No. The truth is still the truth, and "Jesus is indeed the Christ", whether that Jewish individual understands or not.
Likewise, if by providing Biblical evidence to an individual that is a Jehovah Witness, (which a Christian would consider to be conclusive evidence that Jesus is NOT the Archangel Michael), and that Jehovah Witness individual does not comprehend that evidence, does their inability to understand that "rhetoric" diminish its truth whatsoever?
No. The truth is still the truth, and "Jesus is NOT the Archangel Michael" whether that Jehovah Witness understands or not.
To answer your questions;
The "POINT" that I had attempted to convey "IS", that the significance that God places on this aspect of "Firsts and Seconds", is an alternative way to verify many interpretations as to being valid or in error.
They "testify" and serve as a "Second Witness", and because of their complexity, it requires a process of explanation to describe how they work.
And I do not mean to offend you at all, but whether you are "able or unable" to understand as to how "Firsts and Seconds" can be employed as a instrument to do this, does not diminish their truth whatsoever either.
However for example, the significance of "Firsts and Seconds" regarding "Hagar & Ishmael and Sarah & Isaac" within Genesis, are carried over into Paul's explanation of "What" they all "symbolically represent" within Galatians 4:21-31..
And if you personally contend with individuals that still attempt to observe the Mosaic Law, then the following will hopefully assist you in that endeavour, for they are the most critical assemblage of passages to understand in respects to "FAITH and PROMISE vs. MOSAIC LAW".
ABRAM through the slave Hagar conceived "Ismael" FIRST.
ABRAHAM through the freeborn Sarah, (his legitimate wife) conceived "Isaac" SECOND.
As a symbolic foreshadowing, "Ishmael" represents God the Fathers FIRSTborn son, "ethnic Israel", (Exodus 4:22.)
This is confirmed by Paul within Galatians 4:21-31..
As a symbolic foreshadowing, "Isaac" represents God the Fathers PROMISE and "SECOND Born and Only Begotten Son JESUS", (Genesis 22:2.,12.,16., Hebrews 11:17. and John 1:18., 3:16.,18. and 1 John 4:9.).
This is ALSO confirmed by Paul within Galatians 4:21-31..
Now you are correct were you say that "Hagar & Ishmael" and "Sarah & Isaac" symbolically represent two different Covenants.
"Hagar & Ishmael" being the FIRST, symbolically represent the, "Old First Covenant".
And "Sarah & Isaac" being the SECOND, symbolically represent the "New Second Covenant".
(This ties in with "ethnic Israel" being God the Fathers FIRSTborn son, and "JESUS" being the SECOND Born and Only Begotten Son.
Ishmael (FIRST) vs. Isaac (SECOND).
Ethnic Israel (FIRST) vs. JESUS (SECOND).
Old (FIRST) Covenant vs. New (SECOND) Covenant.
Mosaic Law (FIRST) vs. FAITH, PROMISE & GRACE (SECOND).
FIRST Adam vs. SECOND Adam.
And it's important to note here, that "Ishmael and Isaac" are two completely SEPARATE individuals born 14 years apart, and that it is virtually impossible to be both "Ishmael and Isaac" at the SAME TIME.)
But what else does Paul tell us within Galatians 4:21-31.?
He tells us that "Ishmael" being the FIRST, was born through "slavery" and of the "flesh", (in a futile human effort to fulfill God the Fathers Promise).
But that "Isaac" being SECOND, was born through "freedom" by "Divine Intervention and SPIRIT" which fulfilled "God the Fathers Promise" (Gal.4:22,23.)
He tells us that these "Two Children" and their respective "Mothers" are symbolic, and that they also represent the "Two (FIRST & SECOND) Covenants", where the "one", (the FIRST Hagar conceiving Ishmael) symbolically represents "Mount Sinai" (where the Mosaic Law was given) and "bondage", (or the Mosaic Law itself). (Gal.4:24.)
Paul then says that the "SLAVE" Hagar, symbolically represents "Mount Sinai", (where the Mosaic Law was given) and that SHE parallels that of the "earthly Jerusalem" which is in "bondage or slavery" with HER Children, (because those "Children" do not believe that "JESUS is the CHRIST" so "they" still "walk in" and "observe the Mosaic Law"). Or, that these "Children" are still, (like Ishmael) "FIRSTBORNS". (Gal.4:25.)
Paul then says to those that DO believe that "JESUS is the CHRIST", "BUT the Jerusalem that is ABOVE is FREE".
Here Paul is expressing a DISTINCTION, where as opposed to the "earthly Jerusalem" that is in "bondage or slavery" with HER "Children", the "CHILDREN" of the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM are instead FREE.
And that for those that DO believe that "JESUS is the CHRIST", it is the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM that is "those Children's" MOTHER. (Gal.4:26.)
Therefore being DISTINCT, "these Children" that DO believe that "JESUS is the CHRIST" (are like Isaac) and are SECOND BORN, (re; John 3:6. and believers becoming a "New Second Born Creation".)
Paul then quotes from Isaiah 54:1. within Galatians 4:27., where in context, this would have relevance to all of the above.
Now, we have "Hagar & Ishmael" who we have just been told, that in being the FIRST, "Ishmael" was born through "slavery" and of the "flesh", (in a futile human effort to fulfill God the Fathers Promise) and that THEY "symbolically represent", the "Old FIRST Covenant".
They also represent "Mount Sinai"(where the Mosaic Law was given), and the "earthly Jerusalem" which is in "bondage or slavery" with HER Children, because those "Children" do not believe that "JESUS is the CHRIST" so "they" still "walk in" and "observe the Mosaic Law".
Therefore we can also reasonably conclude that "Ishmael" symbolically represents ALL of "FIRSTborn ethnic Israel" as well.
So "WHO" then are the "CHILDREN of the DESOLATE"?
(Remember in context, that we only have "Ishmael and Isaac" to choose from here.)
SARAH was the one that was "BARREN".
SHE was the one that required "Divine Intervention" to give birth by the SPIRIT to "Isaac" and to FULFILL God's PROMISE.
(Ishmael was simply born through "slavery" and of the "flesh", in a futile human effort to fulfill God the Fathers Promise.)
Therefore SARAH is the one that can "REJOICE", for SHE was also the one that had the legitimate HUSBAND in ABRAHAM as well.
This means that "Hagar & Ishmael" and the "FIRSTborn Children" that they symbolically represent, ARE "the CHILDREN of the DESOLATE"!
Now Paul makes another DISTINCTION.
He now compares "the CHILDREN" that are the OPPOSITE of the above, THOSE that DON'T partake in observing the Mosaic Law, to being like ISAAC, (the Second Born) and says, "Now WE, BRETHREN, AS ISAAC WAS, are CHILDREN of PROMISE." (Gal.4:28.)
So "PROMISE" is obviously the antithesis to the "MOSAIC LAW".
Those CHILDREN that "Live by Faith" and "Walk in the SPIRIT" rather than in the "Mosaic Law" are considered to be LIKE ISAAC.
ISAAC was ABRAHAM and SARAH'S CHILD of PROMISE, (JESUS was and is the ultimate FULFILLMENT of PROMISE) and the CHILDREN that "Live by Faith" and "Walk in the SPIRIT" are considered in God the Fathers eyes, to be the "figurative CHILDREN of ABRAHAM".
Galatians 3:6-9.;
"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for RIGHTEOUSNESS. Know ye therefore that THEY which are of FAITH, the SAME ARE the CHILDREN of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through FAITH, preached before the GOSPEL unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then THEY which be of FAITH ARE BLESSED with FAITHFUL Abraham."
What was Abraham BLESSED with?
He was Blessed with RIGHTEOUSNESS because of his FAITH.
(Nehemiah 9:7,8., Romans 4:3.,9.,11.,13.,16.,19.,20-22., Galatians 3:6., and James 2:23.)
Therefore, if an individual is to be considered to be a "figurative CHILD, of Abraham's like ISAAC", and receive the same BLESSING of RIGHTEOUSNESS that Abraham received, then they certainly CAN'T participate in the Mosaic Law and LIVE LIKE ISHMAEL or one of the Children of the Desolate.
Because as Paul says in Galatians 3:12.;
"And the (MOSAIC) LAW is NOT OF FAITH: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them."
So as individual's, we CHOOSE to be either ISHMAEL (a FIRSTborn) or ISAAC (a SECOND Born), and God allows us to make our own decisions.
Then Paul says something quite interesting within Galatians 4:29., where he refers back to Genesis 21:9.;
"But, as he (ISHMAEL) who was BORN according to the FLESH then persecuted him (ISAAC) who was born according to the SPIRIT, even so it is now."
What Paul is referring to here, (and if Law-Keepers actually understood these passages) they would realize that Paul makes mention, numerous times, to those that he refers to as "FALSE BRETHREN".
It is these "False Brethren" that had been plaguing Paul throughout his ministry, who persecuted THOSE CHILDREN that LIVE by FAITH in the SPIRIT, to follow and observe the Mosaic Law.
(This is the whole "point" of the book of Galatians. See 1:6-9., 2:4,5. referencing Acts 15:1,2. and 5. as well as 2:11-21., 3:1-5. etc. etc.)
And Paul utilizes ISHMAEL and ISAAC to symbolically represent his current ongoing struggle, by basically saying "that as it was then, as it is now".
Yet, "this" is also a "FORESHADOWING", for there are ISHMAEL'S today, (the Hebrew Roots Movement) that are trying to convince the ISAAC'S that "LIVE by FAITH and SPIRIT" to also "OBSERVE the MOSAIC LAW".
So what does Paul say will happen to these "ISHMAEL'S" of his time, (and those Hebrew Root Movement individuals of today)?
Well he quotes from Genesis 21:10..
Galatians 4:30.;
"Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "CAST OUT the BONDWOMAN (Hagar) AND HER SON (Ishmael), for the son of the bondwoman SHALL NOT BE HEIR WITH THE SON (Isaac) OF THE FREEWOMAN (Sarah)."
Again, we know from all of the above, that with "Hagar & Ishmael" being FIRST, that "Ishmael" was born through "slavery" and of the "flesh", (in a futile human effort to fulfill God the Fathers Promise) and that THEY "symbolically represent", the "Old FIRST Covenant".
We also know that THEY represent "Mount Sinai"(where the Mosaic Law was given), and the "earthly Jerusalem" which is in "bondage or slavery" with HER Children, and that "Ishmael" symbolically represents all of "FIRSTborn ethnic Israel" as well.
And Paul (and Sarah) say that THEY will be CAST OUT and NOT be HEIR'S with ISAAC.
What is so significant to the above, is that God AGREED with Sarah, and told Abraham to listen to her, and do what she says to do. (Genesis 21:12.)
So the Children of ABRAM and HAGAR, those that are "ISHMAEL'S" and "Children of the Desolate" will be CAST OUT.
Paul then makes another DISTINCTION within verse 4:31.;
"So then, BRETHREN, we are NOT CHILDREN of the BONDWOMAN, BUT of the FREE."
BRETHREN, we are NOT ISHMAEL and a Child of Hagar that Lives by the Mosaic Law, WE will NOT be CAST OUT because WE are like ISAAC, Born of SPIRIT by SARAH and FREE.
And this is "WHY" Paul says what he does within Galatians 5:1.;
"STAND FAST therefore in the LIBERTY by which CHRIST has made "US" FREE, and DO NOT be ENTANGLED again with a YOKE OF BONDAGE."
Where by all that is recorded within the Book of Galatians, (and within other epistle's), the "YOKE OF BONDAGE" is referring to the MOSAIC LAW.
Above I had said, "What Law-Keepers don't appear to understand is, that this belief of being "grafted into ethnic Israel" holds true for them, and that they have made that choice of their own accord."
By observing the Mosaic Law, these individuals have CHOSEN to be a FIRSTborn like ISHMAEL and have grafted themselves back into "ethnic Israel".
Those that LIVE BY FAITH and WALK IN THE SPIRIT are the "ISAAC'S" of ABRAHAM and SARAH who rely solely on JESUS as the PROMISE, and THEY are DISTINCT from the ISHMAEL'S of FLESH.
Habakkuk 2:4.;
"Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: BUT the JUST SHALL LIVE BY HIS FAITH."
And this is "why" Paul refers to the Mosaic Law as "the knowledge of sin", and "the Law of sin and death", (i.e., Romans 3:20. & 8:2.).
"The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.", (1 Corinthians 15:56.)
"the ministration of death" and "the ministration of condemnation", (i.e., 2 Corinthians 3:7. & 3:9.).
So you either chose not to read the above commentary of Galatians 4:21. through 5:1., or it was all simply over your head?
Within the first 4 verses, Paul says Abraham had 2 sons, and that "ISHMAEL" symbolically represents the "Old First Covenant of the MOSAIC LAW".
Then after explaining the differences between "ISAAC" and "ISHMAEL" he says in Galatians 5:1. "For believers to NOT be snared again by the MOSAIC LAW!"
Which would then render all that you believe to be in error, because it contradicts what Paul says within these verses.
If Paul also says in Romans 2:16.;
"in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL.", (which was the GOSPEL that Paul was taught by JESUS CHRIST- Galatians 1:11,12.), then I believe that it is imperative that the GOSPEL that Paul taught be understood.
Who's arguing? I introduced a brand new topic of discussion.
(This is a discussion forum correct ?)
You said that YOU "find the bible easy enough to understand".
So I asked YOU the question, "Why did the Divine, plant the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Eden?"
Your reply of "god created everything out of his own will. god willed it to be so" would be correct, however, that response certainly doesn't answer the question with any specificity. (Especially from someone who claims what you claim above.)
Many, (due to the ensuing consequences), consider the Divine in planting the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil within Eden", to be some form of gross oversight.
Unfortunately, that is because they don't understand that "without" that Tree, both Man and Woman would have remained within a perpetual state of innocence, and the Divine's orchestrated plan would have never had the opportunity to begin in the first place, let alone come to fruition.
Above within my previous comments where I addressed the definition of Torah/tôwrâh, I had said that the first recorded tôwrâh issued to Man in scripture, would be the Commandments of Genesis 1:28-30..
Specifically, Genesis 1:28. reads;
"Then God blessed them, and God SAID to them, "BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY; FILL THE EARTH and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.""
Now, though the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" symbolically represents and foreshadows a variety of different things, in this particular instance "IT" acts as an instrument and catalyst for what I have emphasised in capital letters above to take place.
MAN (Adam) and WOMAN ('ishshah, female) had no idea that they were even naked until they partook of the fruit of this Tree, (Genesis 2:25. vs. 3:7.).
So the aspect of any human sexual arousal would have been non-existent between them.
Procreation and the fulfillment of the Commandment of Genesis 1:28. was previously impossible.
WOMAN, did not have her name changed to Eve, (Chavvah, life, mother of all living, Genesis 3:20.) until they partook of the fruit of this Tree.
And procreation itself ONLY took place AFTER both Adam and Eve had been expelled from the Garden of Eden so that they could then, "FILL THE EARTH".
Now though there are also numerous other reasons that the Divine planted the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil within Eden", I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the answer that you provided, (god created everything out of his own will. god willed it to be so) doesn't validate your claim of understanding the Bible well at all.
Furthermore, in respects to the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", there is also the following;
In Genesis 2:16,17. we now have the first Commandment from YHVH 'Elohiym, where this Commandment expands with greater specificity upon the Commandment from 'Elohiym, in Genesis 1:29..
Genesis 2:16,17.;
"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
(NOTE; Genesis 1:29. was never broken by Adam or Eve, and this Commandment was maintained throughout the lineage of Seth, (Genesis 5:29.) up to when Noah, (who had been declared to be righteous) was told by 'Elohiym, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things", within Genesis 9:3..)
Now it is AFTER that Commandment of Genesis 2:16,17. had been issued to Man, (when who knows HOW LONG Adam had been ALONE in the garden of Eden), or HOW LONG AFTER that last Commandment was issued to him, that YHVH 'Elohiym decide that….
"It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him", (Genesis 2:18.).
*Notice that during that time, Man/Adam, had NOT eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and neither had satan, tried to tempt him.*
But instead of making Woman, They mutually create in relationship, all of the animals and birds, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them, and whatever Adam called every living creature, that was their name. He named all the cattle, and all the birds of the air, and every beast of the field, but Adam was still alone, (Genesis 2:19,20.).
*Notice again, that Adam, had not eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and neither had satan, tried to tempt him.*
Then YHVH 'Elohiym in relationship, finally made Woman.
They caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and while he slept, 'Elohiym took one of his ribs, then closed up the flesh, and He took the rib which He had taken from Adam, and made Woman. And then brought her to Adam, (Genesis 2:21,22.).
"And it is here that Adam utters the first spoken prophecy!"
Adam says in Genesis 2:23,24.;
"This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."
Again, NOT ONCE did satan appear to ADAM and try to TEMPT him in EATING the FRUIT from this TREE.
1 Timothy 2:14.;
"And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
satan waited for the Woman to be created, and came in through the back door, so to speak.
Why then did Adam also partake of the fruit?
He had told the Woman what YHVH 'Elohiym had said, and what the consequences would be if they ate the fruit of that Tree, (Genesis 3:2,3.).
So what was Adam thinking?
Well, if you take the PROPHECY of what Adam said within Genesis 2:23,24., and correlate it with Ephesians 5:25-33., (where Paul then equates these passages to being a GREAT MYSTERY in respects to JESUS and His CHURCH), then if you understand the Bible through God's Spirit, you should also see "why" Adam in doing what he did, is a FORESHADOWING, and makes him a "TYPE" of "MESSIAH".
While reading Ephesians 5:25-33., keep in mind the aspect of taking upon oneself, the SINS of others, and what Adam did.
Look, I am sorry if I offended you above.
However in all fairness, you would have to admit that the answer that you provided could have been supplied by any Sunday school student.
Now regarding Adam in being a "type" of Messiah.
(Though I'm aware that it's your opinion that YHVH is JESUS rather than 'Elohiym, I ask for you to please bear with me for the moment).
Adam was TWO ENTIRELY DISTINCT BEINGS.
The FIRST Adam was created out of flesh and bone in the image of 'Elohiym, (Genesis 1:26,27.) and was initially, WITHOUT sin, blemish or spot.
Therefore he could then approach Father God, (YHVH) and have relationship with HIM.
(This ADAM symbolically foreshadows JESUS before JESUS came to earth to be man's Saviour.)
Then AFTER ADAM ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, he became an entirely different being.
We could say here, that THIS is the SECOND ADAM.
(This ADAM symbolically foreshadows JESUS when HE came to earth to be man's Saviour.)
So what was it that this SECOND ADAM did?
Though THIS ADAM did NOT initially cause the transgression, he took on that sin that the Woman, his Flesh and Bones, or BODY committed, so that they could still have a physical LIFE TOGETHER.
What did JESUS do as the SECOND ADAM?
Though JESUS did NOT initially cause the transgression, HE took on that sin that his Flesh and Bones, or BODY committed, so that they could still have a ETERNAL LIFE TOGETHER.
How does all of this tie in with the context and narrative of Ephesians 5:25-33.?
Text from the verses themselves are in brackets and Capital Letters.
Adam knew that the consequences of eating this fruit was physical death, (as JESUS also knew that His mission would consist of physical death), but Adam, because of his love for his wife, his Bride, he as her Husband, took upon Himself, the transgressions of his Bride, so that they could have a future together, (EVEN AS CHRIST ALSO LOVED THE CHURCH, AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR IT).
Adam was innocent, satan hadn't deceived him, nor did he have victory over him, Adam chose to do this from a heart of love.
JESUS was innocent, satan hadn't deceived HIM, nor did he have victory over HIM, JESUS chose to do this from a heart of love.
Therefore as a FORESHADOWING, ADAM was a "type" of MESSIAH.
Now, if you comprehend the above and agree with it, then I would be happy to provide you with some information that would Biblically confirm that it is 'Elohiym that was manifested as JESUS, and that it is Father God that is YHVH.
However, if you are not interested, just say so, and I'll move on.
Okay then, before we look at YHVH and 'Elohiym.
First, let's see if we agree that the following "spiritual principle" is accurate.
"It is God the Father that first "calls us", (1 Thessalonians 2:11,12.) and Who "draws us" and "grants us" access to come to JESUS, (John 6:44. & 6:65.).
And it is then, through our Faith and Belief in JESUS that we through Grace, are then Justified by His Righteousness."
So would you agree, that before we can come to Father God, (as John 14:6. would state), we have to FIRST go through, (have Faith and Belief in) JESUS?
Would you agree that this would be a Truth as a "spiritual principle"- and that the sequence is, JESUS FIRST, then access through JESUS to FATHER GOD?
Okay, so we both agree, that there is a "spiritual principle", where the SEQUENCE is, JESUS FIRST, then access through JESUS to FATHER GOD.
Well if that is a TRUTH, wouldn't Father God also FORESHADOW that SEQUENCE throughout Scripture, just like HE has FORESHADOWED JESUS as the Messiah and Saviour throughout Scripture?
We have just discovered by the above, that this "foreshadowing of JESUS as Saviour" had been FORESHADOWED right from the beginning while Adam was still in the Garden of Eden.
So, wouldn't Father God have also had Moses, (while inspired by the Holy Spirit) scribe this SEQUENCE as well?
Of course HE would!
As per Luke 24:44., the whole point and totality of Scripture is about the Divine being manifested into JESUS, where this SEQUENCE and "spiritual principle" would go hand in hand.
(NOTE; Here is an interesting aspect that MUST be considered regarding Luke 24:44.. It reads as follows within the N.K.J.V.;
"Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.""
When JESUS said this, (though He was including them), He wasn't LIMITING the "Law of Moses" to be JUST what had been revealed at Sinai.
EVERYTHING that MOSES scribed while inspired through the HOLY SPIRIT, is "tôwrâh" as the Divine Law, Direction and Instruction.
This can be substantiated by both Psalms 40:7. and Hebrews 10:7..
Psalms 40:7.;
"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the VOLUME of the BOOK it is written of ME,")
So let's continue and look at what Moses had SCRIBED regarding YHVH and 'Elohiym.
First we know from New Second Covenant text of, John 1:1-3., 1 Corinthians 8:6., Ephesians 3:9., Colossians 1:16,17., and Hebrews 1:2., & 2:10., that JESUS created EVERYTHING, and Moses SCRIBED 'ELOHIYM FIRST from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3. BEFORE YHVH is mentioned within Genesis 2:4.
Enoch FORESHADOWS a Gathering or Rapture.
Enoch walked with 'Elohiym FIRST, (Genesis 5:22-23.), and it was 'Elohiym that "took" (laqach, caught up, seized) Enoch.
And we know that JESUS will come in the clouds, (1 Thessalonians 4:17.) and that it is JESUS that will "take" or "catch up" (harpazō, to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly) those that are accounted worthy, up to God the Father.
Therefore as a FORESHADOWING, because Enoch walked with 'Elohiym FIRST, and it was 'Elohiym that "took" Enoch, 'Elohiym then took him up to YHVH.
Then there is Noah.
Noah, because he walked with 'Elohiym FIRST, was just, [tsaddiyq] (Genesis 6:9.), therefore he found GRACE in the eyes of YHVH, (Genesis 6:8.).
And, because Noah obeyed all of the Commandments from 'Elohiym FIRST, regarding building the Ark, preparing the food for themselves, and all of the birds and animals, consisting of two, both male and female, (Genesis 6:13-22.), then YHVH could declare Noah as being righteous, [also tsaddiyq], (Genesis 7:1. & Hebrews 11:7.).
It was ONLY then that Noah had relationship with YHVH, and Noah, (after he had been declared as being righteous) then received Commandments from YHVH, where He expanded upon the Commandments from 'Elohiym, to gather seven of every clean animal, both male and female, and specified that instead of just two birds of male and female, to increase that number to seven as well, (Genesis 7:1-4.), which Noah then fulfilled, (Genesis 7:5.).
Now do you see a definite pattern emerge and a SEQUENCE of 'ELOHIYM interacting with an individual FIRST prior to having access to YHVH?
If so, based upon the "spiritual principle" that we have both agreed upon, wouldn't all of this FORESHADOW 'ELOHIYM as being JESUS, rather than YHVH being JESUS?
I could have provided far more, but I thought that the above would prove to be sufficient.
It's time for me to move on.
I will leave you with this to muddle over though.
If JESUS is YHVH, then what was the POINT of Him coming to earth to die for our sins, because that would mean that every ethnic Israelite that DOESN'T believe that "JESUS was/is the Messiah" are SAVED anyway because they ALL call on YHVH'S NAME.
Joel 2:32.;
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD (YHVH) shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD (YHVH) hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD (YHVH) shall call."
If JESUS is YHVH by calling on the name of YHVH, they have been saved, and doesn't Scripture say, that it is Father God Who "Calls us", "Draws us", and "Grants us" to come to JESUS?
And it is within Acts 2:22. that Peter says that it is JESUS of Nazareth's name that must be called on.
Acts 4:12. says that there is No other NAME under heaven through which we can be saved, other than JESUS'S NAME.
Every Apostle and Disciple could have eliminated persecution by simply saying "YES" we call on YHVH to be saved.
But instead they ALL preached the NAME of JESUS.
Try taking what is said within the whole verse into consideration.
Joel 2:32.;
"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD (YHVH) shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD (YHVH) hath said, and in the REMNANT WHOM THE LORD (YHVH) SHALL CALL."
The New Second Covenant text says that It is GOD THE FATHER that first "CALLS US", (1 Thessalonians 2:11,12.) and WHO "DRAWS US" and "GRANTS US" access to come to JESUS, (John 6:44. & 6:65.).
I'm moving on and I wish you all of the best.
But if you are still attempting to observe the Mosaic Law, or believe that JESUS died to create some form of "Renewed" Covenant, then I don't think that my wishes for you will make much difference.
GM, sir,
Shame on you..!
Or are you circumcised without anesthesia again..?!
(I forgot to stop "following" posts on this page, which I will rectify after making this last reply.)
Shame on me for "WHAT" specifically?
Marianne says directly above in her last comment #361924, "I never mentioned the mosaic law. or a covenant."
Is that really true?
Her whole post on December 6th. 11:27 am., (comment #361636), is all about the Mosaic Law STILL being applicable for those that follow JESUS.
She says that, "the law is not abolished, it is just made clear with grace." and then provides a site "http://www.eliyah.com/protorah.html" to clarify her point of view.
The author of that site is clearly a proponent of the Mosaic Law, and has taken the "Gospel of JESUS" completely out of context, (like all "law keepers" have), and she then culls out excerpts from that site, to substantiate what she believes.
Therefore by the means of logical extension, Marianne is a proponent of the Mosaic Law still as well, and doesn't believe in a New Covenant.
(That's not rocket science there Olaf.)
Now if you go to that site to verify this, please notice the following errors that this author makes.
1)The author first states in their heading;
"The following is a collection of clear scriptures showing that Paul never taught that we are free to disobey the Law (Hebrew: Torah)."
Above the author is "LIMITING TORAH" and equating "IT" to be solely consisting of the "MOSAIC LAW", where there is a vast amount of "tôwrâh" that Paul utilized to teach that originates from the Book of Genesis.
This was provided by the Divine thousands of years prior to the revelation at Sinai.
EVERYTHING that MOSES scribed while inspired through the HOLY SPIRIT, is "tôwrâh" as the Divine Law, Direction and Instruction.
Though the Mosaic Law is included within Torah, "tôwrâh" ISN'T defined solely by the Mosaic Law!
2) The author states, (by placing N.K.J.V. in brackets) that they are quoting from that Version.
However, nowhere within that Version is the word "Elohim" utilized in Acts 24:14. or anywhere else.
3) In quoting Acts 18:21. the author makes two (2) mistakes in attempting to substantiate their belief.
One (1) would be the word "Yahweh" where again the N.K.J.V. does not utilize these words for the Divine.
And two (2) Paul never said, "I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem"!
The actual Greek Morphological text for Acts 18:21. is rendered as;
"ἀλλὰ ἀποταξάμενος καὶ εἰπών πάλιν ἀνακάμψω πρὸς ὑμᾶς τοῦ θεοῦ θέλοντος ἀνήχθη ἀπὸ τῆς Ἐφέσου."
And would be translated as rendered as,
"But taking leave of them and saying, "Again I will return to you if God wills." he set sail from Ephesus."
There is NO MENTION of JERUSALEM at all!
Luke (who is the author of the Book of Acts) and who accompanied Paul on this journey, records what took place.
In Acts 18:22. they went to Caesarea, then went to Antioch.
In Acts 18:23. after spending sometime in Antioch, they went to region of Galatia and Phrygia.
In Acts 19:1. after Paul had passed through the upper regions, HE CAME BACK to Ephesus.
Where he spoke in the synagogue there for a period of THREE MONTHS, Acts 19:8..
Now during those THREE MONTHS some of the Jews in the synagogue became hardened of heart, so Paul left them, took his Disciples, and went to the school of Tyrannus, (which was located in Ephesus) and continued teaching in that school for a period of TWO YEARS, Acts 19:9,10..
So, in taking into account the mode of travel that was available at the time, this journey, and the recorded time that Paul and his Disciples spent in Ephesus when they all returned, probably took the better part of THREE YEARS.
Galatians 2:1. would also confirm this fact, where Paul says that he didn't find it necessary to go up to Jerusalem for a period of FOURTEEN YEARS.
"Then FOURTEEN YEARS after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also."
The journey from and back to Ephesus, and Paul after his conversion by NOT going back to Jerusalem, BREAKS the Commandment issued within the Mosaic Law of Exodus 23:14-19., and Deuteronomy 16:16..
So clearly the heading of that author….
"The following is a collection of clear scriptures showing that Paul never taught that we are free to disobey the Law (Hebrew: Torah)"
…. is simply incorrect!
The author of this site is NOT a Berean, and I would have to say that anyone that would recommend this site, is also NOT a Berean.
Sorry OLAF, I don't accept your condemnation, and I'll allow for JESUS as Judge to make any determination of "shame" on any individual, Himself.
After your: "I'm moving on and wish you all of the best', it kept silent here. However, your finishing touch after your 'leaving' was rather unpleasant. Marianne doesn't deserve that. Next she already had told you not having plenty of time for the endless sharing. That's why I felt sorry for her and was thinking of how to stop bro elephant and posted my (to) late reaction,
Olaf, Marianne, Bereanstreet 10.
Well "Hi" there Olaf,
I just thought I'd check in here to see if any further discussion had taken place regarding the above.
I know that you have every right to defend the understanding and beliefs of the Administrator here.
However with this being an "open forum", I in turn would have the same right to question and challenge those understandings and beliefs.
And if you believe the same as the Administrator believes, and it is your understanding as well, that the individuals that Believe and have Faith in Jesus as the Saving Christ, and have therefore become members of His Church, have been GRAFTED INTO Israel, and a group of individuals that DON'T Believe and have Faith in Jesus as the Saving Christ, and are therefore NOT members of His Church, then "good luck" with that understanding, because to me that is simply nonsensical.
As well, if you believe what the Administrator believes regarding Abram/Abraham being aware of Isaac from the very beginning, then that is equally absurd.
Tell me… do you understand that Genesis 22:1-19. though being an historical account of an event, is also an ALLEGORY?
That within that historical account, Abraham symbolically represents a "type" of God the Father, and that Isaac symbolically represents a "type" of Jesus?
If so, then as a student of the Word, you should also be able to make the connection that Ishmael symbolically represents Israel.
Because within Galatians 4:21 through 5:1., Paul explains and confirms the fact, that HAGAR and ISHMAEL vs. SARAH and ISAAC are also to be understood as an ALLEGORY.
Some Questions;
"Who was God's Firstborn son?"
As per Exodus 4:22. the Nation (people) of Israel were God's Firstborn son.
Who was God's Second born Son?
As per John 1:14.,18. 3:16.,18., 1 John 4:9., Jesus was God's Second born and Only Begotten Son.
"Who was Abram/Abraham's Firstborn son.
As per Genesis 16:11. and 15,16., Ishmael was Abram/Abraham's Firstborn son.
"Who was Abram/Abraham's Second born son?"
As per Genesis 17:16-19., and 21:1-3. Isaac was Abram/Abraham's Second born son.
Not ONLY that, BUT ISAAC was ALSO "THINE ONLY SON" (Genesis 22:2,12,16.) and "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON" (Hebrews 11:17.).
Abram/Abraham = Father God.
Father God's Firstborn son is ISRAEL (Exodus 4:22.) Abram/Abraham's Firstborn son is ISHMAEL.
Father God's Second born and Only Begotten Son is JESUS. Abram/Abraham's Second born and Thine Only Begotten son is ISAAC.
If we as Believers in Jesus, have been GRAFTED INTO a nation of people that are STILL IN THEIR SIN, then JESUS simply DIED IN VAIN.
Perhaps you should take the time to read http://www.bookofgalatians.ca
*** < ***