The Promises and the Birthright
In one of their recent "web chats," the Church of God International hosted a discussion about "What is the Birthright Promise?" Like most Armstrongites who embrace Anglo-Israelism, CGI conflates "the promises" with "the birthright." Then, in a classic example of circular reasoning, they use the "birthright promise" as the principal proof that the U.S. and Britain represent modern-day Israel. Likewise, an important corollary to this "proof" is the assertion that some of the promises are "spiritual" in nature, and some of them are "material/physical" in nature.
What about these claims? How do they square with what is recorded in Scripture? Does a Divine "birthright promise" demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt that the English-speaking peoples of the world represent the fulfillment of such a promise?
First, it is important to establish precisely which promises we are talking about. After all, most students of the Bible know that God made a number of promises to a number of different people(s). Hence, for the purposes of this discussion, we are specifically focused on the promises that God made to Abraham and his offspring.
We find these promises initially mentioned in the twelfth chapter of Genesis. We read there: "The Lord had said to Abram, 'Leave your native country, your relatives, and your father’s family, and go to the land that I will show you. I will make you into a great nation. I will bless you and make you famous, and you will be a blessing to others. I will bless those who bless you and curse those who treat you with contempt. All the families on earth will be blessed through you.'” -Genesis 12:1-3 Summarizing, God promises: 1) to make him into a great nation, 2) to bless him and make him famous, 3) to make him a blessing to others, 4) to bless those who treat him well and curse those who abuse him, and 5) to bless all of the families on earth because of him. Later on, in verse seven, God adds that he would give the Land of Canaan to his descendants (Hence, the Promised Land). In the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, God also promises Abram a son (an heir) to inherit the land which "He" has promised him.
Later still, God confirms the promises which "He" has made to his faithful servant. We read: "This is my covenant with you: I will make you the father of a multitude
Having nailed down the "promises," the next question that comes to mind is "Did God fulfill all of these promises?" And, if you think that the answer to that question is a simple "yes" or "no," you may not be as familiar with Scripture as you thought you were!
To be sure, there is certainly a sense that God fulfilled these promises to Abraham. Scripture informs us that Abraham's descendants grew into great nations (Judah, Israel, Edom, Moab, Midian, etc.) Likewise, we read in I & II Kings and I & II Chronicles about all of the kings who descended from Abraham. Scripture also informs us that Abraham was famous in his own day and has certainly been made famous to all succeeding generations by the account we have in those same writings. Finally, we know that Abraham's descendants eventually inherited the "Promised Land" and did often serve as a blessing to other nations. Can we, however, say that these promises were actually fulfilled, knowing that the Israelites eventually lost their independent kingdoms and were carried away into captivity? What happened to "It will be their possession forever"?
Even so, in the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, we are informed that God tested Abraham's faith and reconfirmed "His" promises as a consequence of Abraham's performance. We read: "This is what the Lord says: Because you have obeyed me and have not withheld even your son, your only son, I swear by my own name that I will certainly bless you. I will multiply your descendants beyond number, like the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will conquer the cities of their enemies. And through your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed—all because you have obeyed me." Genesis 22:16-18
We ask again: Did God ever fulfill these promises to Abraham? In the New Testament book of Hebrews, Abraham is held up as one of the great examples of faith in God. -Hebrews 11 Nevertheless, we are informed: "All these people
Notice too, that this statement includes all of the promises made - it doesn't differentiate between "spiritual" and "material" promises! In other words, there is a definite sense that ALL of the "promises" were spiritual in nature and were to be fulfilled in the FUTURE.
Going back to the account in Genesis, we notice just a few chapters later that Isaac (Abraham's son and heir) has two sons of his own (Esau and Jacob). - Genesis 25 In this same account, we are also informed that Esau was the firstborn - the one who according to the law of primogeniture would inherit the bulk of their father's estate. In biblical parlance, it was Esau's birthright (because he was born first) to inherit whatever their father had inherited from his father (Abraham). Even so, the chapter concludes with an account of Esau selling his birthright to his younger brother (Jacob) for a bowl of stew!
Later, we learn that God appeared to Isaac and reiterated the promises which "He" had made to Abraham. We read: "I hereby confirm that I will give all these lands to you and your descendants, just as I solemnly promised Abraham, your father. I will cause your descendants to become as numerous as the stars of the sky, and I will give them all these lands. And through your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed. I will do this because Abraham listened to me and obeyed all my requirements, commands, decrees, and instructions." -Genesis 26:3-5 Again, the promises are repeated and attributed to Abraham's obedience. In other words, because Isaac is Abraham's heir, the promises are passed on through him.
In the next chapter, we learn that Jacob stole Esau's blessing from their father. -Genesis 27 Apparently, Isaac intended to bestow an extraordinary blessing on his eldest son, but the younger son tricked him into believing that he was his older brother and secured the blessing in his stead. -Genesis 27:1-40
Later still, God makes a similar promise to Jacob in a a dream. God tells him: "I am the Lord, the God of your grandfather Abraham, and the God of your father, Isaac. The ground you are lying on belongs to you. I am giving it to you and your descendants. Your descendants will be as numerous as the dust of the earth! They will spread out in all directions—to the west and the east, to the north and the south. And all the families of the earth will be blessed through you and your descendants. What’s more, I am with you, and I will protect you wherever you go. One day I will bring you back to this land. I will not leave you until I have finished giving you everything I have promised you.” -Genesis 28:13-15
In this connection, it is interesting to note that the previously referenced eleventh chapter of Hebrews includes Isaac and Jacob as examples of the faithful. We read there: "It was by faith that Abraham obeyed when God called him to leave home and go to another land that God would give him as his inheritance. He went without knowing where he was going. And even when he reached the land God promised him, he lived there by faith—for he was like a foreigner, living in tents. And so did Isaac and Jacob, who inherited the same promise." -Hebrews 11:8-9 And, just so that there could be no misunderstanding the message of this chapter, the author repeats: "All these people earned a good reputation because of their faith, yet none of them received all that God had promised." -Hebrews 11:39
Continuing with the account, we are later informed that God changed Jacob's name to Israel (see Genesis 32). Then, after thinking his son Joseph was dead for many years, God revealed to Israel that he would be reunited with his favorite son in Egypt and die there (see Genesis 46). Finally, just before he dies, Israel blesses Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, and adopts them as his own (see Genesis 48). For Armstrongites, the all important scripture here is Israel's statement to Joseph about the boys recorded in verse nineteen. He said, "Manasseh will also become a great people, but his younger brother will become even greater. And his descendants will become a multitude of nations."
For the hosts of the CGI web chat, the scripture that ties all of this together is found in the fifth chapter of I Chronicles. We read there: "The oldest son of Israel was Reuben. But since he dishonored his father by sleeping with one of his father’s concubines, his birthright was given to the sons of his brother Joseph. For this reason, Reuben is not listed in the genealogical records as the firstborn son. The descendants of Judah became the most powerful tribe and provided a ruler for the nation, but the birthright belonged to Joseph." -I Chronicles 5:1-2 For Anglo-Israel Armstrongites, this scripture proves that the promises were divided into the "spiritual" scepter and the "material" birthright. One promising Christ, the other promising physical wealth and preeminence to the physical descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh.
Unfortunately, this scripture does NOT do what Armstrongites claim it does! If we carefully reread this scripture, we see that it is quite simply an explanation of why Reuben does not appear in the genealogical records as the eldest son of Israel! According to the law of primogeniture, he should have been the heir to the birthright. However, because he "dishonored his father," he forfeited his right to that inheritance; and Israel designated Joseph's sons as the legitimate heirs to his estate!
Now, most modern Armstrongites are willing to acknowledge that the scepter promise is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Even so, Herbert and some of his followers have pointed out that the promise was at least partially fulfilled through David and God's promise to him. Was it though? Wasn't David merely a component of the ultimate fulfillment of this promise? Herbert claimed that God physically kept "His" promise to Abraham and David about a kingly line by continuing that line through the Irish, Scottish and British kings and queens.
Even so, serious students of the Bible understand that the Old Testament clearly records the downfall of the Davidic dynasty, and the New Testament gospels of Matthew and Luke take great pains to record that Jesus was a descendant of David! Moreover, secular history makes plain that the Irish, Scottish and British thrones passed through several females and contained numerous gaps (thus negating the promise that "David will never fail to have a man sitting on the throne of the House of Israel" -see Jeremiah 33:17).
As for the promise of land and wealth, I suppose one could say that those promises found fulfillment in the ancient Israelites (though I've already pointed out that they lost their land and wealth because of their defeats by the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians). And, YES, the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh possessed the most land area within Israel; and God did eventually give Jeroboam (of the tribe of Ephraim) ten of the tribes of Israel to rule over.
Once again, however, the author of the book of Hebrews clearly treats this history as not fulfilling the promises made to God's children. We read there that the Israelites did NOT enter God's rest, and that the promise of that rest consequently still stands! (see Hebrews 3 and 4) Moreover, the Israelites clearly did not abide by the terms of the Old Covenant - that's why we have a NEW one (and that doesn't mean that those Israelites are permanently excluded)!
And, in his letter to the saints at Rome, the Apostle Paul makes plain that physical descent from Abraham does not make one an heir of the promises made to him. Paul tells them that it is the folks who have accepted (or will accept) Jesus Christ as the Messiah/Savior who will receive the promises. Indeed, he wrote to the saints of Galatia: "For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes. There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God’s promise to Abraham belongs to you." -Galatians 3:26-29
Hmmm, when you put it that way, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest than any nation(s) or people(s) have yet inherited the promises made to Abraham. For those of us who are truly Christians, we know that God will completely fulfill these promises someday - not in times past or today, but someday God will keep those promises made to Abraham so long ago.
Lonnie Hendrix
70 comments:
This is too long. I won't read it.
It's not as long as "The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy" or the forty-five minute presentation by CGI. The post is lengthy in order to cover the scriptural evidence which refutes the basis for CGI's support of Anglo-Israelism.
God repeated many times that "David will never fail to have a man sitting on the throne of Israel." This means the promise is very firm. So even when Israel morally collapsed and went into slavery, it's only the practical application of the promise that was lacking. Any gaps did not invalidate the promise. That there is no record of the throne transferring to Ireland, Scotland and England proves nothing since they did not have a written language till about 400 AD.
Lonnie: Good expositive writing. Thanks. I would like to comment on the scripture below that you cited.
"Manasseh will also become a great people, but his younger brother will become even greater. And his descendants will become a multitude of nations."
I typically cite genetic evidence to refute British-Israelism but ethnography works just as well. Some months back, after I presented genetic evidence that British-Israelism is false, one blogger wrote that he was sticking by the "great nation and a company of nations" argument. To him this geopolitical phenomenon was just wholly persuasive. (I should mention that the Spanish also fit this model well - the Milesian Scots also migrated into Spain, etc.) But the scripture above that persuades so many actually forms the basis for an incisive refutation of British-Israelism.
First, note that the statement speaks of two tribes. It is a tribal blessing. It speaks of "his descendants", a clear reference to a collection of people sharing a common descent from Ephraim. So this promise is clearly tribally based. We can try to map this ancient promise onto the modern nations of the US and British Commonwealth but it does not fit. This is because these modern nations do not form tribes. For example, I have family in the British Isles and in Australia. I know a girl from Australia whose ancestors originally came from Ireland by way of Canada and now she lives in the United States. This is a common event. There is no distinct ethnic group that could be Manasseh and none that could be Ephraim. This intermixing of people violates the tribal separation that is necessary for this scripture to be true in modern times.
There are ways that this argument from ethnography can be sidestepped but not without some really creative and pretextual exegesis.
"This is too long. I won't read it."
Your loss...
I guess NEO's argument is more difficult to defend in a world ruled by:
"McMahons" Australia
"Mackenzies" Canada
"Macarteney" South Africa
"Fraser" New Zealand
etc etc etc etc
I got the distinct feeling the SEP camp leadership and WCG Council of Elders was EXACTLY shaped like and governed as the Saxon Witan Council.
Mcenany would do a great warior queen.
Although in Manassah speak her first name would mean "keeper of the keys" and in Ephraim speak her name would be "born blind" which would better fit the leader she serves.
nck
Jeremiah 33:17 is taken out of its context.
This Scripture is for the New Covenant Kingdom of God.
The time frame is introduced by the restoration formulas: “In those days, and at that time” (v.15) and “In those days” (v.16).
It will be a time when David will have a descendant sitting on the throne continuously (v.17) and the Levites will also have a man to do sacrifice continually (v.18).
Only if God’s covenant with the regular alternation of day and night be broken will His covenant with the Davidics and the Levitical priests come to an end (v.20, cp.25-26).
The implication of this prophecy is that David would want for a man to sit on the throne after the fall of Jerusalem to the neo-Babylonians, and the Levites, most of the time, would want for a man to offer burnt offerings and to kindle meat offerings.
Jesus Christ, the Messianic Branch (v.15) will restore the Kingdom to Israel (cp. Acts 1:6) in this yet to be fulfilled comforting prophecy delivered at the time that these two pillars of the Theocratic Kingdom toppled.
NEO
"There is no distinct ethnic group..?" Since you missed it, Poms, Aussies and Yanks have distinct accents and temperaments. This is what always struck me about the TV police show 'Cops.' The temperament of those shown varied only slightly, if at all, state by state.
At any rate, a prayer request is one way to prove/disprove BI. My experience was yes, as is the tribulation.
One reason Bob Thiel tries to refute those that say the NT could have been authored in Hebrew or Aramaic, and the Messianic/Hebrew roots movements, is their rejection of the "Lost Tribes/British Israel" theory.
David will have a descendant sitting on the throne continuously...
And he does as I am proof of this promise as I sit on my office chair throne.
Anonymous 7/19 @ 7:50,
The scriptures dealing with God's promise to David point to Christ and his Kingdom. Notice II Samuel 7:11-16 "Furthermore, the Lord declares that he will make a house for you—a dynasty of kings! For when you die and are buried with your ancestors, I will raise up one of your descendants, your own offspring, and I will make his kingdom strong. He is the one who will build a house—a temple—for my name. And I will secure his royal throne forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. If he sins, I will correct and discipline him with the rod, like any father would do. But my favor will not be taken from him as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from your sight. Your house and your kingdom will continue before me for all time, and your throne will be secure forever."
Moreover, the scripture I referenced from Jeremiah in the above post conclusively demonstrates that the promises to Abraham and David were to find there fulfillment in Christ. Notice that scripture in its full context: "The day will come, says the Lord, when I will do for Israel and Judah all the good things I have promised them. In those days and at that time I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line. He will do what is just and right throughout the land. In that day Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety.
And this will be its name: ‘The Lord Is Our Righteousness.’ For this is what the Lord says: David will have a descendant sitting on the throne of Israel forever." Jeremiah 33:14-17
Also, this is entirely consistent with what God is reported to have told Solomon. Notice in both I Kings 9:4-5 and II Chronicles 7:17-18 that Solomon and his descendants participation in the promise to David was CONDITIONAL on their obedience!
Hence, the promise clearly finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, and he will inherit the throne of his ancestor David from God - NOT from Elizabeth II, Charles III, William V or George VII!
N.E.O.
Thank you for your comments. You make an excellent point about the ethnological problems inherent in assigning a U.S. and Britain identity to Manasseh and Ephraim. My own genealogy points out the absurdity of such a notion (English, Scottish, Irish, French, German, Scandinavian, African, Native American, Jewish etc.).
In similar fashion, Armstrongites who support Anglo-Israelism tend not to mention the fact that the British are a mix of many different peoples/tribes (Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Picts, Vikings/Scandinavians, etc.). And this mixing goes way beyond being part Egyptian and part Israelite. Sure, some of the blood of Abraham has been introduced into the mix along the way, but it is such a diluted and small portion of the whole and impossible to assign to one of the ancient twelve tribes of Israel!
And, if we are going to identify modern Ephraim solely on the basis of his being a "company of nations," why exclude the Romans, Holy Roman Empire, Ottomans, Russians or United Nations? All of this on top of the DNA evidence!
Is Lonnie Hendrix really Miller Jones?
Anonymous
Anonymous said...
God repeated many times that "David will never fail to have a man sitting on the throne of Israel." This means the promise is very firm. So even when Israel morally collapsed and went into slavery, it's only the practical application of the promise that was lacking. Any gaps did not invalidate the promise. That there is no record of the throne transferring to Ireland, Scotland and England proves nothing since they did not have a written language till about 400 AD.
"It [the throne] shall be no more, until He comes whose right it is."
Ezekiel 21:27
"It [the throne] shall be no more (overturned), until He comes whose right it is."
In other words, that was the final move until He comes whose right it is.
Hi Miller @5.27
I do completely follow what you are saying!
I do however remember a discussion we once had on Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren, to which you replied somewhat along the lines that "3rd persons are not to decide on another persons affilliations or identity" kinda....................
Now suppose the 0,000001 pct Israelite people of the Americas wish to identify themselves as "Israel" would you agree, or would you agree if 0,000001 pct native American EW wishes to identify herself as "part of a native TRIBE"?
nck
6.10 AM
You wrote nothing about your interpretation of this verse. It can be interpreted as the thrown being moved from Jerusalem to Ireland, then Scotland, then England. Many English kings believed that they were the fulfillment of God promise to David to always have a king sitting on his throne.
Ezekiel 21.27 "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more, until he comes whose right it is."
Another point is why are a bunch of spoilt ribbon cutters revered world wide, going back many generations? Where's cause and effect? That is, unless these royal family ribbon cutters are sitting on Christ's throne, and reverence toward them is indirectly reverence towards Christ. God has accomplished this by pouring out a certain spirit on mankind.
Anonymous (2:09)
I do not miss the fact that these modern nations have different cultures. That just happens to be irrelevant to the argument.
You may have missed the fact that these people all came from the British Isles and, after centuries of intermixing in Britain, they have all moved back and forth indiscriminately across the putative tribal boundary between the supposed Ephraim and Manasseh - essentially erasing that boundary in contravention to the modern Armstrongist application of ancient scripture.
Some, without thinking, will assert that God miraculously preserved the integrity of these two tribes. The undeniable empirical evidence is that God let natural processes happen. If a British family produced some children who migrated to Canada and some to the American colonies, how biologically do the children represent two different tribes as Armstrongism requires? And this kind of migration is happening currently. The evidence is present with us now.
There is no history of a divine sorting algorithm applied to these people to ensure a separate ethnic Ephraim and a separate ethnic Manasseh in spite of he unsupported declarations in Armstrongist literature. There is evidence that god didn't sort anybody. This model based on tribal identity in modern times can happen only in the realm of Armstrongist fable.
If your prayer life has indicated to you that British-Israelism is true and that there is going to be a Tribulation, you need to carefully examine your prayer life. It should reasonably occur to you that your thinking just might be saturated with accumulated Armstrongist biases.
Pack, Flurry, Weinland, Thiel et al. are ALL KOOKS!
I PROMISE!
Anonymous said...
6.10 AM
You wrote nothing about your interpretation of this verse. It can be interpreted as the thrown being moved from Jerusalem to Ireland, then Scotland, then England. Many English kings believed that they were the fulfillment of God promise to David to always have a king sitting on his throne.
Ezekiel 21.27 "I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, and it shall be no more, until he comes whose right it is."
The throne itself came to an end with Zedekiah, just as the temple did. And there is a prophecy to show this fact,
"And you profane wicked prince of Israel [Zedekiah] ... remove the diadem [from Zedekiah] and take off the crown ... I will overturn, overturn, overturn [Hebrew: perverted, perverted, perverted] and it [the crown] shall be no more [it will no more be in existence] until he comes whose right it is, and I will give it [the crown] to him."
Ezekiel 21:25–27
The crown was to be taken from Zedekiah’s head—it was to become perverted (ruined and destroyed) with a triple force, and be no more (cease to exist) until Christ will come to wear it!
The triple words, "perverted, perverted, perverted," have excellent meaning to them. The verb "to pervert" means, according to the dictionary,
"to divert from a proper use or function; to misdirect or misapply; to twist from proper meaning, give wrong significance to, misconstrue; to turn from true belief, allegiance, morality, etc.; give a wrong or distorted view to."
All of these things Zedekiah had done to David’s throne. The throne was meant to help the oppressed, to feed the poor, to show righteousness to Israel and to all. But Zedekiah had perverted (three times over) its original intention. He had perverted it so thoroughly that the Davidic throne had become the very antitheses of what God had intended. So, God finally had to say,
"It [the throne] shall be no more, until he comes whose right it is."
Ezekiel 21:27
The throne had become so perverted that God brought it to an end with Zedekiah, and it will not be reinstituted, according to the Word of God, until Christ’s second coming.
This is God’s word. It fulfills all prophecy concerning David’s throne completely. God did not void his covenant with David—He is faithful. David will never lack a man to sit on the throne. And that throne will be in Jerusalem, nowhere else!
Why pick on CGI ? They couldn't care less about this blog and more likely to be oblivious of it. They are more free thinking in their Church lives than the bloggers are aware. The ones who stayed in WCG until the bitter end have no idea of CGI. They assume much but know nothing. CGI was never like UCG.
So what really is a successful life, bloggers on here ?
A double life?
Wouldn't it be wiser to take notice of Victor Kubic's latest sermon.
CGI only ever took three Holy Day tithes from brethren. How many tithes again do YOU take in real life?
The Davidic-Irish-Scottish-English "overturning" scenario is inconsistent with the scriptural evidence. In the NIV, Ezekiel 21:27 reads: "A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! The crown will not be restored until he to whom it rightfully belongs shall come; to him I will give it." Likewise, in the NLT, the same verse reads: "Destruction! Destruction! I will surely destroy the kingdom. And it will not be restored until the one appears who has the right to judge it. Then I will hand it over to him."
In other words the original Hebrew word translated in the KJV as "overturn," indicates the ruination of something.
However, for the sake of argument, let's say that the KJV represents the correct sense of the word. In this case, Ezekiel's prophecy accurately reflects what actually happened to David's dynasty. We are told in the twenty-third chapter of II Kings that Pharaoh Nechoh deposed King Jehoahaz and replaced him with Eliakim/Jehoiakim. In the next chapter, we read that the King of Babylon replaced King Jehoiachin with his uncle, Zedekiah. In the twenty-fifth chapter of the same book, the King of Babylon deposes Zedekiah and doesn't replace him. You can do the math - I count three overturns.
And, finally, if you insist on holding on to Herbie's interpretation of Ezekiel, what do you do with this verse from the prophet Amos?
"In that day I will restore the fallen house [tabernacle/tent] of David. I will repair its damaged walls. From the ruins I will rebuild it and restore its former glory." Amos 9:11 If David's house/tent still exists somewhere, why the need to restore it?
Hello nck,
My point with Elizabeth Warren was that she should not be prevented from claiming that part of her heritage, NOT that she should be identified as part of the modern Cherokee Tribe! I'm part Jewish - I have some of the blood of Abraham coursing through my veins. I am not, however, a Jew! Likewise, the majority of my ancestry is European, but I'm identified as an American.
For some time I've stated that the COGs do not need BI to do effective scaremongering. Matt 24 centers on the Middle East and expands to the whole world "unless those days be shortened".
The "US and Anglo allies" and the other "BI nations" is where the money is.
BI hasn't worked for Bob Thiel, unless you count his post-colonial brethren as being Israel-by-association.
CGI (and ICG) dropped other WCG fringe doctrines, such as Church Eras and Place of Safety, even 3rd Tithe ("the government does that"). As far as I know, only CEM dropped BI; Ron Dart said he was never comfortable with it.
Within Armstrongisim the ones who reject British Israelisim teaching tend to be anti-semitic.
ALL of the Armstrong Churches of God (including CGI) are very aware of this blog. Moreover, if you care to explore some of the past posts here, you will see that some of them even comment here from time to time!
I see Miller.
It was a while ago.
It is a miraculous thing for Americans to behold when they return to the bossom of their European tribe and see that more people have the exact shape of their eyes, they share the average height of everyone around them, recognize their mothers handgesturing when speaking or find their political leanings not to be "liberal" or unpatriotic, but just "ordinary and common sense.
Nck
HWA's interpretation (as well as J.H. Allen's, if you read Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright) of Ezekiel 21:27 was that the "overturn, overturn, overturn" passage spoke of three distinct overturns or transfers of power that would take place where the throne would change hands or transfer the crown between various members of the family line three times, but then remain in an unbroken line or be "no more overturned" as Allen explains it, until the return of Christ, at which time the Queen or King of England who according to this theory currently occupies the throne of David, will be replaced by Him. One of the problems with that interpretation however, as discussed above by others is that it adds a thought that can't naturally be drawn from the Hebrew language of the passage.
For the sake of illustration, let's replace the discussion of the "crown" in the above verse with something else, and use the same language to describe what happened to it, like a dress. If I ruined, ruined, ruined a dress to the point that it was "no more" or "shall no longer be" as the ESV translates the above passage, would that mean the dress is no longer usable, viable, etc. and in fact can no longer be worn, or would that mean it remains intact, but someone else now owns it, uses it, wears it? If I say that it will not be the same,(vs.26) does that mean the dress is still much the same, wearable, etc, but is simply being used by another, or does it mean that the dress(crown) is no longer what it once was, since it is now "ruined"?
Miller Jones, makes a valid point. Why would God need to talk of "restoring" and "rebuilding" from "ruins" the "fallen" house of David if it is still very much intact, and occupied? Why not just "overturn" or transfer the crown one more time, to it's final and rightful owner?
We can't just force ideas and interpretations into scriptures without taking into account the meaning of the actual words that we are supposed to be translating. To use this passage as "proof" of the British crown being David's throne is a stretch, and that's being generous. Yet, I haven't heard many in the COGs that hold this opinion address some of these issues or holes in the theory so to speak, in any effective or meaningful manner. Most just speak of these things as if they are fact, and ignore any questions that might arise.
Concerned Sister
It is interesting that European Christian writers through history often identified the western Europeans as the sons of Japheth. British Israelism, of course, has to make them sons of Shem and thereby of the same ancestor of today's Jews.
Of course anti-semitic types would have a problem with that.
Anonymous said...
Within Armstrongisim the ones who reject British Israelisim teaching tend to be anti-semitic.
July 20, 2020 at 12:29 PM
That's a LIE!
Thank you concerned Sister. Another point not mentioned is that the royals look Jewish, which gives credibility to their Davidian linage. As far as I'm m concerned, the body of evidence points to the queen sitting on David's throne. After all, the institution is unique. There's nothing like it on this planet. Perhaps the scriptural doubts are for the best since bowing to a Jewish queen would present problems to many people.
Not forgetting, the Anglo-Saxon possession called Australia, in the middle of a overcrowded Asian. It sticks out like a sore thumb. And how convenient that a lost fighter squadron came upon the Japanese fleet in the battle of Midway. They sank three aircraft carriers in five minutes. None were destroyed by the torpedo plane squadron shown in the recent Midway movie. The battle of Midway ensured that Australia remained in English hands. There's too many coincidences to explain away BI.
I feel sorry for Lonnie, (if that is his name), because he falls into the same category of those so despised on this page, such as Thiel, Pack, Flurry, as well as other dead WCG 'ministers'. Pick and choose scriptures, seemingly declare to understand all. Obviously a LOT of time put into whatever this thing is that he wrote. It is pitiful.
Psalm 89:44: You have made his splendor to cease and cast his throne to the ground.
The arguments for and against british israelism get involved and even profound. I can sum them up by saying that if British means "man of the covenant", Britain means "not of the covenant."
4:30
Within the context of 1910-1945 american anti semitism. Which was far more widespread than taught in common history books. HWA's version of BI was an enlightened aftempt to link WASP dominant culture with the influx of Eastern European/Jewish immigration culture. Of course by that time immigration quota had been firmly established targetting peoples from non WASP nations.
The further development of blending jewish cukture into "American culture" rapidly increased in the 1930's through artists developing jewish characters acceptable to wasps like Superman (whose shady immigrant history from a lost world and schlemiel looks (at the paper) and many other features are firmly jewish.
With Gershwin and the other *American songbook" writers jewishness is further inserted.
An example,"White Christmas", "Sleighride", and many other signature "Christmas" songs by jewish writers do not contain anything about Jesus.
This "nothing about jesus" is about the biggest complaint against Armstrongism.
So HWA was part of an emancipation wave of jews in fascist wasp america, just as the original BI emancipated american jewish rich wives into british victorian culture. This was the time Rotchild and many other jewish banker ladies provided the underpinnings of the empire but needed cultural acceptance. BI provided that ideology, with jews being direct family of the wasp.
Earlier emancipation happened when the protestant princes of Europe raised at the court of the habsburg pharaoh, in their break away propaganda, likened themselves to Moses, raised at court, albeit taking their new nations *out of egypt* into protestant freedom.
The rest is history and the world has been ruled by wasps since 1648.
Thats why the "spanish thesis" is so ridiculous. BI is a protestant ideology used to break away from the Spanish Habsburgers and their un american un patriotic catholicism as it was perceived when immigration quota from italy and catholic nations were installed.
HWA did not take the easy road agains dominant wasp culture.............. ANOTHER proof HWA was not a fraud or deliberate deceiver, he simply believed what he had read and convinced us of the same.
Nck
Lonnie Hendrix: "And, in his letter to the saints at Rome, the Apostle Paul makes plain that physical descent from Abraham does not make one an heir of the promises made to him. Paul tells them that it is the folks who have accepted (or will accept) Jesus Christ as the Messiah/Savior who will receive the promises."
As to Paul's writings, the ten-lost-tribe theorists would say that they are separate but inclusive. Meaning that there is an election of race and also an election of grace for the promises made to Abraham. Some questions never addressed by the theorists:
Why did God allow Jacob to swindle Esau out of his birthright? Was it in God's plan for Jacob, along with his mother, to deceive Isaac who was the son of Abraham the "promise-holder"? If God had intended for Jacob to receive the birthright, why didn't God just go ahead and cause Jacob to be the first born of Isaac instead of Esau? Is God a fan of meritocracy?
Those Christians who believe that the British throne is the Davidic throne and was transferred to the British Isles via a daughter of Zedekiah, the last Davidic king of Judah, have been bewitched by a complete and utter fantasy.
The thrice emphasis of "overturn" (Hebrew "avvah") in Ezekiel 21:27 is to reinforce God's irrevocable word to "twist" the throne entirely. Compare Isaiah 6:3 or Jeremiah 7:4 and 22:29 wherein a word(s) is repeated thrice to emphasize God's holiness, or the self-delusion of the Judahites to presume God would never remove them from the Holy Land and destroy His temple in Jerusalem, or to call upon the land to bear divine witness against Jeconiah.
The Davidic throne was originally the "throne of the LORD" (1 Chronicles 29:23) who gave it to his servant David and his male descendants. The throne of David was never inherited by a female descendant of David. With King Zedekiah's death and the execution of his sons the Davidic throne came to an end on earth. It is in an interregnum at present. However, Christ who is descended from King David is now sitting on the "throne of the LORD" in heaven and is the living heir apparent who will return in the future to reunite the twelve tribes of Israel and restore the throne of David in Jerusalem.
Further, Anonymous 7/20 @7:33 AM your Anglo-Israelist statement that the British royal family sit "on Christ's throne, and reverence toward them is indirectly reverence towards Christ" is as blasphemous as the Catholic statement that the Pope sits as the Vicar of Christ on earth. The British monarchy sought legitimacy as head of state and head of the church and thus the various political inventions like the identification of the Stone of Scone with Jacob's pillow-stone and the British monarch's descent from King David to enhance the prestige and authority of the British monarch. The British people under the delusion they were doing God service exchanged one form of blasphemous idolatry with another, that is, from obeisance of the Catholic papal dynasty to that of the British royal dynasty. Both are counterfeits to the ultimate Davidic and Messianic throne that has been secured by the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is all so clear when you can see that BI is an ideology and Armstrongism was a Movement.
It is impossible to see when you believe BI is history and Armstrongism was a religion. Well the religion of the New World Order perhaps since EVERYTHING Armstrongism taught is coming to pass today, in a secular way.
nck
On a related note.
Today it is announced that the Beefeaters or Royal Yeoman Wardens at the Tower of London are facing layoffs because the tourist numbers at the Tower dropped from 15.000 to 800 visitors per day due to Covid.
To many this is of course normal economics for these "picturesque British quaint Tourist guides".
However it did strike me because, of course, the Yeoman wardens in the figure of the Raven Master are responsible for feeding the Ravens at the Tower.
ONCE THE RAVENS GO THE KINGDOM WILL PERISH as the prophecy goes.
Aw shucks, old prophetic nonsense and lore...........however I believe there is truth in the connection between "Lay offs", "pandemics", "economic hardship" and the Royal's amongst the last to suffer. I mean that "Trooping of the Colour event" this year.......a pity affair as compared to the past decade and the past decade a pity affair as compared to the sixties and seventies due to Army reductions and lay offs.
So yes HWA was one of the greatest philosophers ever regarding the rise and fall of empires.............in a secular way. I guess not through scolarly education but through living in the most interesting times EVER in history and having the right contacts at the Chambers of Commerce and Business to explain the basic scenario's to him. And of course the bible writers had witnessed the same thing in their time. And there you have the connection between "the rise of fundamentalism" and the "rise of the American Empire" from 1920-1994 (when WWII ended with the Fall of the Soviet Union and the formal ending of the Occupation of Germany.)
nck
Liam
I suggest you look at the world around you rather than exclusively at some interpretation of scriptures. In my books, the description of the nation and company of nations, lines up with history. Another example, during WW2, the Japanese had fought their way up the Kokoda trail to within eye sight of Papua New Guineas capital of Port Moresby. It's capture would have been a threat to Australia's security. At this point they received a radio order to retreat, since they were needed elsewhere. This doomed them. They perished retreating. Why the miracle of Midway and this miracle, unless it was a fulfillment of Gods promise to Abraham?
BTW, God gave Australia to the Anglo-Saxons. It is not the property of the indigenous Aboriginals as many anti God political leaders claim.
Anonymous
Anonymous said...
Liam
I suggest you look at the world around you rather than exclusively at some interpretation of scriptures. In my books, the description of the nation and company of nations, lines up with history. Another example, during WW2, the Japanese had fought their way up the Kokoda trail to within eye sight of Papua New Guineas capital of Port Moresby. It's capture would have been a threat to Australia's security. At this point they received a radio order to retreat, since they were needed elsewhere. This doomed them. They perished retreating. Why the miracle of Midway and this miracle, unless it was a fulfillment of Gods promise to Abraham?
BTW, God gave Australia to the Anglo-Saxons. It is not the property of the indigenous Aboriginals as many anti God political leaders claim.
July 21, 2020 at 4:56 AM
BULLSHIT!
Anonymous said...
Liam
I suggest you look at the world around you rather than exclusively at some interpretation of scriptures. In my books, the description of the nation and company of nations, lines up with history. Another example, during WW2, the Japanese had fought their way up the Kokoda trail to within eye sight of Papua New Guineas capital of Port Moresby. It's capture would have been a threat to Australia's security. At this point they received a radio order to retreat, since they were needed elsewhere. This doomed them. They perished retreating. Why the miracle of Midway and this miracle, unless it was a fulfillment of Gods promise to Abraham?
BTW, God gave Australia to the Anglo-Saxons. It is not the property of the indigenous Aboriginals as many anti God political leaders claim.
July 21, 2020 at 4:56 AM
Let me try that again. BULLSHIT!
Anonymous (4:56)
The logical fallacy that your argument suffers from is called circular reasoning. It goes like this:
1. Assume British-Israelism is true.
2. Using this assumed framework, interpret events of history.
3. Use this interpreted history to prove that British-Israelism is true, hence, the circularity.
The statement "the nation and company of nations, lines up with history" is false. See my earlier posts on the lack of tribal integrity for Ephraim and Manasseh if they are identified as the modern British Commonwealth and the USA.
You stated "BTW, God gave Australia to the Anglo-Saxons. It is not the property of the indigenous Aboriginals as many anti God political leaders claim." Where does it state that God gave Australia to the Anglo-Saxons? Certainly it does not say that anywhere in the Bible. This idea is a fabrication. The White people from Britain who populated Australia are principally Celtic - a side issue. These people came to Australia with larger numbers, better resources, a penchant for criminality and higher technology and they simple took Australia from the Aborigines. It is the same kind of dispossession that has occurred around the world for millennia. The Germans dispossessed the Wends. Nobody makes any great claims that the land really belonged to the Germans all along because god gave it to them. These are just the brutal facts of history. Dressing it up in theological terms has no underpinning.
NEO
Land was never "taken" from indigenous peoples, because they never considered the land "theirs".
You are making the fallacious assumption that native peoples somehow adhered to Roman property rights or right to ownership and private possesions.
Most early treaties with indigineous peoples (like the mannahattans) show that they welcome the newcomers, allow them to dwell on mother earth and share that land for living and establish trade relations.
Little did they know that the White man decided to bring sheep, build skyscrapers, holiday islands on rats island (sacred grounds), or grow cotton, grapes, and peanuts and drain the swamps.
Ah yes, linear western thinking toward progress, the aboriginals should have studied their Roman Law more before they decided to share mother earth.
Nck
If your interpretation of a scripture is faulty and doesn't back up the point you are trying to make or the idea you are promoting, but you force it through anyway, that is mishandling the scripture and misleading to others. If it is proven that the explanation given is questionable, then further investigation needs to happen.
The COGs pride themselves on pointing it out when the teachings of others are inconsistent with scripture. We become hypocrites though, when we misinterpret scripture to justify our own ideas or teachings, or stubbornly maintain our own position on an issue even when legitimate issues with the interpretation are presented.
The scriptures discussed above have long been used as "proof" of the Davidic lineage of the British crown, even though you can't naturally draw that conclusion from the reading of said scripture and in fact such a reading would lead one to conclude that the crown was taken from that line, until Christ claims and restores it. We have essentially used scripture to back up our own conjecture and speculation on the issue rather than allowing the scriptures to lead us to truth. If someone wishes to continue to believe that the British Queen occupies David's throne, that is their perogative, but in my view the above scripture cannot be used to back up such a claim and still be honest with the interpretation of the passage.
Concerned Sister
Just imagine a "spaceship" from nowhere filled with white ghosts, some furry and hairy around the nose and lips. A funny dressed blackman, translates poorly, "Is this your land dear sirs?"
"Of course not", you answer, it is all given by mother earth to eat and enjoy.
The diary reports..........nothing to trade.............and a piece of cloth on a stick is left when the ship sails away.
Later in Cold and Damp London, Mr Glencore looks at a map with flags and starts rubbing his hands while thinking............
In Islamic nations like Malaysia the Sultans answer, "Actually it all belongs to me, but I distribute some since Allah wills it so...........!"
The reply of the blue men is stern. This is all fine and dandy, but from now on you will fall under the protection of her Majesty who protects the entire earth......of course we will need some compensation for that, I'm sure you understand.
Then they build a Church that is an exact copy of St Martins in the
Fields at Trafalgar and establish their trading head quarters there. They paint the walls with a portrait of the Last Supper, all the figures resemble members of the honourable society. You play a prank by having this scroogy negotiator and trader portrayed as Judas and the transvestite police chief who supresses uprisings in female clothing as Maria Magdalena.
(Calcutta 1855)
nck
The rise of America from 1920 ? Bit off by several decades aren't you.
Agree RSK.
Nope it's very true. They can be very lightfooted about it.
Utter rubbish nck.
Oh swearing in print now. Getting emotional much.
Oh swearing twice in print. What class you don't have. But of course it's one rule for you and another for members. But then B.I. is well known for years to rile you.
"Utter rubbish nck"
I just love the host of arguments by this extremely intelligent and enlightened poster.
I do admit to having produced a lot of humoristic postings.
But I am 100 percent sure the person responding holds in utter contempt exactly the parts I took from the institutions of higher learning and were not meant humorously.
nck
"The rise of America from 1920 ? Bit off by several decades aren't you."
I take the end of the of WWI ending America's isolalation as a minor backward agricultural nation as compared to the European empires that imploded after 1918. Then the Wilsonian international age commences and HWA as its chief apostle sitting with the secretary General of the UN in 1985.
nck
As delightful as ever Nck.
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him — the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord — and he will delight in the fear of the Lord. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious. In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean.
Isaiah 11:1-11, NIV
Notice that Christ is portrayed in this scripture as a shoot emerging from the stump of Jesse (Jesse's/David's tree has obviously been chopped down!
Nck: "Land was never "taken" from indigenous peoples, because they never considered the land "theirs"."
That is a generalization that you cannot support. Native Americans, for instance, did not buy and sell land to each other. But they did have a sense of possession and a recognition of boundaries in most cases. Land tended to switch hands due to migration or war. Land was very much taken from indigenous people in North America usually with gratuitous violence. The Quakers were the only people I know of who sought to compensate Native Americans in land transactions. The Scots-Irish, when they were not occupied with killing each other, tended to exterminate Native Americans to obtain their land.
Generally, NEO, they looked at it more as a territory boundary than a possession. Generally, it was the territory of the tribe and not an individually combined possession whereas settlers viewed it as individually owned. English law would say that if you are not using and improving a property your ownership may come into question if someone else comes by and begins using and improving the property.
NEO is forcing Western legal thought on the native peoples, as the colonial governments did in establishing legal title to obtain the land.
Its not that the native people "sold" manhattan for 24 (888) dollars, it was a friendly exchange and token of agreement to trade.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title_in_New_York
My entire point is that legal and philosophical justification is usually sought after the facts.
Kinda like invading Iraq and altering the middle east for "finding weapons of mass destruction." Or the Soviet invasion or any invasion (like the "Glorious Revolution") that needed legal title through invitation of the legal government.
Nck
One of the main reasons for the creation of America was the taking and occupation of the native lands of the Celts by the Anglo Saxon usurper lords whose average profit from sheep in the Highlands topped that of a rural population.
I have written about BI created expressly to MAKE jews into cousins of the powerful saxons that ruled 1/3rd of the World at the time. Under Benjamin dIsraeli the jews became emancipated and assimilated as their banker daughters married into the british elites. (eventually creating Israel but that is a different story).
NOW HOW WOULD A JEW (dIsraeli) CATER TO THE HOUSE OF SAXON and I repeat SAXON GOTHA (HANNOVER) (Victoria) to JUSTIFY their rulership of the world. BY INSERTING that SAXON means (I)Saacsons of course, which would place the jews and the SAXONS on one firm footing.
For those who find that ridiculous, I would remind you that Victoria was the HEAD of the CHURCH OF ENGLAND as main propagandist for BI and the transformation of the mission of the British India Company to "Benign" State led colonialism which needed MORAL JUSTIFICATION THROUGH IDEOLOGY.
The protestant identification with the tribes of Israel since 1580 (as moving out of Habsburg pharaoh pagan i.e catholic Egypt empire) provided the backdrop for this ideology to take hold and be embellished by those that advised Victoria.
This lovely UNEDUCATED lady who presided over the greatest empire of the world once tried to solve troubles between Hindu and Muslim tribes by suggesting to move the date of one of those Hindu festivals. Toward the "deep state" answered. "Ma"am that would be like moving the date of Christmas."
And this is the level of education and naivite that tried to grasp how to wield enormous power over the peoples of the earth. It was trial and error and people tried their best while the most evil people who truly enforced and executed the plan were at least 20.000 miles away and whose actions were condoned.
That's why Aby Ghraib is a far worse crime than the British Empire. By the time of Aby Ghraib it was well known and taught as part of the curriculum at the military academies, what "little people" would do, if the Chain of Command CLOSES an eye on events.
That's why British history books speak about Muslim risings or Hindu rebellions, while the local historians speak of "the first war of independence."
I do aplaud British Abolitionists or Social wariors from the early 1800's, but it should be very clear that the elites ONLY starten to hearken to those people when they lost the comparative economic advantage over other slave holding nations. Just as American Industry responded to Japan and Germany only AFTER losing markets. (This in no way negates the sacrifice of the American Volunteer Army that liberated the world from the scourge of fascism, don't get me wrong) It points to the answer when HWA stated that "this was a world held captive".........and we should know by know how this world is held captive. Through (personal/national) debt and 6 media companies controlling the narrative.
nck
Nck
America had the draft in WW 2 rather than a volunteer army. The recent 6 part TV series "Catch 22" portrays just how 'volunteered' they were.
Allow me to be kind for once.
Agreed then.
20 percent of all registered and 2 thirds of all men were drafted indeed.
Nck
Hos 3:4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim.
Many days (years/centuries/millenia) without king, priest, temple and sacrifice.
I would like to clarify the quote that Miller Jones used on July 20, 2020 at 5:03 AM regarding Jer 33:17: For this is what the Lord says: David will have a descendant sitting on the throne of Israel forever
Here is the interlinear link for Jer 33:17. If you click on the link, the version of Miller is a little different from what the original text is saying. The NKJV translated it better - ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;'
The verse is a prophecy stating that in every generation there would always be a man (from Judah, a son of David) who can sit on the throne. (I'm not saying the throne is existing, see Hosea 3:4).
The next verse, Jer 33:18, is a similar prophecy but this time referring to the high priest. That in every generation there would always be a man (from Levi, a son of Aaron) who can hold the office of high priest.
Israel's tribal affiliation is patrilineal (Num 1:18), determining descent through the male line. We can read how the Davidic line is preserved divinely in 2 Kings 11. Jehosheba, daughter of King Joram (aka Jehoram of Judah, not the Joram of Israel; see 2 Kings 8:16,23-25) hid Joash (2 Kings 11:2) when Athaliah was killing all the royal heirs (2 Kings 11:1). Although Jehosheba was the daughter of King Joram of Judah, she was not killed because she's not considered a royal heir (neither her son if she bore one).
Jerusalem will be called this …
Jer 33:16 In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called: YHVH TSIDKENU (OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS).’
Does this mean Jerusalem is God? Are we to worship it?
The coming Messiah will be called …
Jer 23:6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; Now this is his name by which He will be called: YHVH TSIDKENU (OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS).
Does this mean the coming Messiah is God? Are we to worship him?
Notice how similar the two verses - Jer 33:16 and Jer 23:6. This type of naming person or place after God is called Theophory.
good point
I would suggest that the prophecy is not saying “that in every generation there would always be a man (from Judah, a son of David) who CAN sit on the throne.”
Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come
Jer 23:6 In his days...
Jer 33:15 In those days, and at that time...
Jer 33:16 In those days...
Jer 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
From the context, this is a prophecy that finds fulfillment when Christ restores the kingdom to Israel, that is, it is a prophecy for the New Covenant Kingdom of God when there will always be a descendant of David sitting on the throne of the Lord, ruling for the Messiah. Ezekiel writes concerning these descendants of David:
Eze 46:16 Thus saith the Lord GOD; If the prince give a gift unto any of his sons, the inheritance thereof shall be his sons'; it shall be their possession by inheritance.
Eze 46:17 But if he give a gift of his inheritance to one of his servants, then it shall be his to the year of liberty; after it shall return to the prince: but his inheritance shall be his sons' for them.
Eze 46:18 Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession.
Eze 48:35b and the name of the city from that day shall be, The LORD is there.
Not only will Jerusalem be called “YAHWEH [is?] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS,” it will also be called “YAHWEH [is] THERE”.
Anon July 26, 2020 at 11:11 PM said, From the context, this is a prophecy that finds fulfillment when Christ restores the kingdom to Israel, that is, it is a prophecy for the New Covenant Kingdom of God when there will always be a descendant of David sitting on the throne of the Lord, ruling for the Messiah.
Yes, you are correct that the context is messianic. Does this mean verse 17 is not applicable prior to its messianic fulfillment? Does this mean there is a generation since the last king of Judah when no son of David could occupy the throne, meaning become king, or continue the Davidic line? Jeremiah was still in the dungeon when Jerusalem fell, Zedekiah the last king of Judah was taken captive and his soms killed. Did the Davidic line continue through the daughter of Zedekiah? I've mentioned above Jehosheba's story. A princess cannot inherit the throne. Neither her son can inherit it. Otherwise, Jehosheba would have been killed to eliminate the possibility of her bearing a son.
In your quote above, you alternated between using the word Christ and Messiah. Although the Greek equivalent of Messiah is Christ, for Christians there is only one Christ (Jesus). The word Messiah or Mashiach simply means anointed. In Tanakh, there were many Messiahs - kings (1 Sam 10:1; 16:13), priests (Ex 30:30-33), prophets (1 Kings 19:16; Ps 105:1) and foreign kings (Isa 45:1; 1 Kings 19:15). Although not in Tanakh, the Jews use "Ha'Mashiach" or "The Messiah" to refer to the future anointed king from the line of David who will rule Israel during the messianic age.
Can you provide Tanakh reference to support your last phrase above - "ruling for the Messiah"?
Let us examine the time frame when The Messiah will appear …
Jer 33:14-16 Behold, the days are coming,’ says YHVH, ‘that I will perform that good thing which I have promised to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah: ‘In those days and at that time I will cause to grow up to David a branch of righteousness; he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called: YHVH TSIDKENU (OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS).’
Jer 23:6 In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; Now this is his name by which he will be called: YHVH TSIDKENU (OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS).
This did not happen during the time of Jesus. Up to this present time the inhabitants of Jerusalem do not dwell safely. This is one of the reasons why Jews reject Jesus as The Messiah. There were several men since Zedekiah that the Jews thought to be the one, e.g. Shabbtai Tzvi and Bar Kochba, while they were alive. When they died, the Jews stopped considering them. In every generation, the Jews hope that a son of David will be born, become their king and usher in the messianic age during his lifetime.
The Messiah is also called prince in Ezekiel (Eze 37:24-25 … My servant David shall be their prince forever). This is the same prince you quoted in Eze 46:16-18 as having children. He is flesh and blood anointed king of Israel (Ha'Maschiach).
Yes, the last verse of Ezekiel states Jerusalem will be called 'YHVH is there'. Why? Eze 44:1-2. (As a side note, Eze 44:9 states one needs to be circumicised in heart AND flesh in order to enter the Sanctuary.) YHVH is called Father and Husband in Tanakh (Jer 3:14, 19b; Isa 63:16, 54:5). Jesus quoted the Shema (Deu 6:4), 'Hear O Israel: YHVH our God, YHVH is one'. In case you missed this comment from another post.
It looks like we will have to agree to disagree on certain subjects; so my present understanding on a few things.
Jer 52:31 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin KING of Judah ... that Evil-merodach king of Babylon ... lifted up the head of Jehoiachin KING of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison,
The legal line of David continued through Jehoiachin (Jechonias, Matt 1:12) and that Jesus Christ inherits the throne through His adoption by Joseph. If the line continuing through Zedekiah’s daughters it could be argued that Jesus Christ cannot inherit the throne because He is not in the line of succession.
Inheriting the throne through Joseph would seem to be in keeping with your claim: “A princess cannot inherit the throne. Neither her son can inherit it.”
Deut 6:4 Listen, Israel, the Lord [Kyrios] our God [Theos] the Lord [Kyrios] one is (LXX).
1 Cor 8:6 But for us one God [Theos] the Father... and one Lord [Kyrios] Jesus Christ
Paul takes the Shema and applies Theos to God and Kyrios to Christ.
Jn 20:17 Jesus saith unto her ... go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend ... to my God [Theos], and your God [Theos].
Jn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord [Kyrios] and my God [Theos].
The last confession of the Gospel of John is also the climatic confession.
Thomas applies both Theos and Kyrios of the LXX version of the Shema to Christ.
The Father is the God of the brethren, and yet one of the brethren can claim Christ is also his God.
So in the NT there are two who are God. This is the same as in the OT.
Ac 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;
Ge 48:15 And he [Jacob] ... said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
Ge 48:16a The Angel [Aggelos, LXX] which redeemed me from all evil...
The God-being who ‘fed’ Jacob was the Angel of the Lord.
I do not agree that the nasi’ of Ezekiel 37:25 is the nasi’ in the vision of Eze 40-48.
Eze 34:23 And I will set up one [eis, LXX] shepherd [poimen, LXX)] over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David;
Jn 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep...
Jn 10:16 And other sheep I have ... and there shall be one fold, and one [heis] shepherd [poimen].
David of Ezekiel is the Messiah by “antonomasia”; He is the good/one shepherd of John’s Gospel.
The Angel fed/feeds Jacob (singularly) and Jacob (collectively).
Jn 21:17: Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep
NC - Church: God (heaven) - Christ (heaven) - Peter - sheep
NC - Kingdom: God (heaven) - Christ (heaven) - nasi’ - sheep
“The Lord is there” is not mean to be taken literally, it is used in the sense that John could write:
Rev 2:13 I know where you live - where Satan has his throne... your city - where Satan lives. Cp. Isa 7:14
Eze 44:1 the gate of the outward sanctuary ... was shut.
Eze 44:2b because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it...
Technically Christ’s dwelling presence will not be in the city of Jerusalem as the Temple is some distance from the city, depending on where the Priests’ portion is located in the teruma and what unit of measurement is used to fill the ellipse of Eze 45:1, cubits or rods.
Ezek 44:1-2 is an “indirect messianic prophecy,” that is, it can only be literally and fully realized through the Messiah/the Angel of the Lord, aka the Voice of the Lord, Name of the Lord, the Face of the Lord (cp. Peniel), and the Glory of the Lord.
Mal 3:1 and the Lord [’adoni], whom ye seek,
even [epexegetical waw] the Messenger [Aggelos, LXX] of the covenant, whom ye delight in:
shall suddenly come to HIS temple [rearranged to highlight the parallelisms]
Eze 43:5 and, behold, the glory [doxa, LXX] of the LORD filled the house.
Heb 1:3 [God’s Son] being the brightness of his glory [doxa]
Christ’s doxa will fill the Millennial holy of holies; just as His glory filled the Tabernacle and the First Temple.
Anon July 29, 2020 at 12:47 PM,
Jeremiah cursed Jeconiah (Jer 22:28-30). No descendant of Jeconiah will sit on David's throne. Although his great grandson Zerubbabel was faithful to God, he was unable to sit on the throne. But he was given a signet ring (Hag 2:23) and appointed governor over the Jewish people. The one who followed Jeconiah as king was Zedekiah, his uncle (1 Chr 3:13, 2 Kings 24:17). Regarding Jer 52:31 that you quoted, if you read until the end of the book, nothing is mentioned about Jeconiah's son succeeding him.
Another problem with Jesus being adopted by Joseph … There is no Tanakh basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.
Also, Luke's genealogy is useless since it has Nathan instead of Solomon (2 Sam 7:14; 1 Chron 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6).
Moses wrote the Torah in Hebrew, not in Greek. Deu 6:4, Shema (Hear) Yisrael (Israel), YHVH elohenu (our God), YHVH echad ([is] one). YHVH is the proper name of God. Some say it is a combination of three Hebrew words. None of the three corresponds to the Greek kurios in meaning. The name YHVH has no equivalent in Greek, or any language. Which one carries more weight? The original in Hebrew or the translation in Greek?
Anon said, So in the NT there are two who are God. This is the same as in the OT.
There is only one in Tanakh. In case you are thinking of Elohim because it is plural in form, please read Elohim with singular verb. Elohim when referring to YHVH is plural in quality, not in quantity (pluralis majestatis).
Son of God in Tanakh: Israel (Ex 4:22, Deu 14:1), David (Ps 2:7), Solomon (2 Sam 7:14), et al.
Ps 2:7 could not refer to Jesus. Why would God have to inform Jesus, if he's God, of the exact nature of their relationship? If Jesus was God, how can he be begotten? Are we to presume that this statement was made on the day of Jesus' incarnate conception, and that God spoke to the fertilized egg? Should we presume that this fertilized egg had the ability to answer God, as is implied in verse 8? If the statement, “This day I have begotten you” was made to Jesus at a date later than the day of his conception, and is thus figurative in meaning, he is then not distinguished from all the others who are in the “sonship of God.”
Regarding Jn 20:28, some of the explanations of JW.
The Angel of YHVH … In Haggai 1:13, he is described as YHVH's messenger. The priest is designated as a messenger of YHVH of hosts (Mal 2:7). If you click on 4397 above the word malak, you'll get the various verses where malak appears. The word messenger is translated from the Hebrew malak/malach, the same word often translated to angel. The angel is always an impersonal being whose name is not necessary (Gen 32:29-30, Ex 33:20), since he is simply a messenger to whom God has entrusted a specific mission. Any words or actions of a malak are as if YHVH was the one uttering or doing it (compare 2 Sam 24:1-2 and 1 Chron 21:1-2; Satan is a malak).
The 'David' in Ezekiel is a reference to Ha'Mashiach, a flesh and blood anointed future king of Israel.
Interesting notion to inherit rulership according to Roman Law, "in the spirit of adoption we say abba father."
The judges seemed to have powerfull women though. Although I believe Deborah was the daughter of the priest/man military leader of the special army unit "the host of the lord", who ruled Petra as elder to the Israelite rulers who needed to grovel before this army leader with priestly power to declare ground holy.
Nck
Post a Comment