Paleo-Indian Hunting Camp (Fair Use)
Paleo-Indians and the Bible
Armstrongism in Contention with Anthropology
By Scout
Back a couple of decades ago, my wife and I were eating in a restaurant with another couple. He was a Deacon in the WCG. It was after Sabbath Services and all seemed cordial and pleasant. But then something happened that made me feel as if I had stepped into the surreal. We were talking about the fact that there were some nearby Indian Reservations. He said that the Indians did not belong here. She said that God said to “wipe ‘em out.” This was dreadful not because I had never heard it in the WCG before but because I had not heard it in a long time. It was as if they really did not understand the consequences of what they were advocating – the terror, the screams, the slaughter, blood on the ground, men, women and children dying. I was taken aback. I recall hearing such statements when I first came into the WCG. A prominent professional man in Spokesman Club told a small group of men in conversation that “People feel sorry about how Native Americans were treated but they’re the Canaanites!” The Deacon and his wife had no trouble asserting the needed genocide because they were reciting what they thought was orthodox WCG belief.
The point of this short essay is that the informal doctrine of the extermination of Native Americans held by the WCG is invalid.
The WCG Indian Policy
I never ever heard the WCG pulpit advocate the extermination of Native Americans. I heard it many times from the pews. The position of the pulpit was much more subtle than making a blatant statement that advocated genocide. All the pulpit really needed to do was to establish that Native Americans were Canaanites and everyone would get the picture. And they did this. The Torah was quite specific about what should happen to Canaanites – they were destined to become slaves and those who lived in the Promised Land (including North America) should be exterminated. So, this was a policy never spoken from the pulpit but it was also never denied by the pulpit even though it was a view held explicitly by many in the pews. Ron Dart was the only minister I ever heard stand in opposition to this viewpoint on genocide before a congregation. Otherwise, it seemed to be agreement by silence.
And, of course, the Torah was written on the heart of all who believed including the instructions to exterminate the Canaanites, according to Armstrongism. But genocide could be eschewed according to Rod Meredith because the Ministry of Death had been abrogated in the New Testament. This view, actually without exegetical validity, avoided mandatory bloodshed but it left Native Americans in a dismal should-have-been-killed state.
Who are the Native Americans?
About a decade ago, a genetic study of Northern Europeans was done and the results were puzzling. There was a genetic connection between Europeans and Native Americans. Archaeogenetics further revealed that both Europeans and Native Americans were descended from a group of people called Ancient North Eurasians. Native Americans are about 30 percent Ancient North Eurasian and about 70 percent Ancient East Asian. The important point to notice is that none of the Native American ancestry came from the Near East or North Africa where the ancient Canaanites lived. Native Americans are Eurasians.
Who are the Canaanites?
In this context, it is important to define the Canaanites. It is because Native Americans were thought to be Canaanites and lived in a land that properly belonged to “Israel” that the WCG considered them to be candidates for extermination by the righteous. Spencer Wells, a famous geneticist, worked on a National Geographic project that identified the Canaanites. He discovered that the ancient Canaanites, the Phoenicians and the modern-day Lebanese were genetically continuous. I am wondering if current Armstrongist denominations have ever advocated the extermination of the Lebanese. I just heard today that Israel and Hezbollah have made a truce. Will Armstrongists wave a copy of the Torah and warn Israel that it should not make peace with the Lebanese as the Torah states (Exodus 34:12)? It makes you wonder why HWA never brought this important end-time message to Teddy Kollek.
Summary Argument
Armstrongists were always happy to keep Thanksgiving. But I would imagine the typical imagery of Thanksgiving, with Indians and Pilgrims in cordial festivity, might cause Armstrongists to cringe. Israelites and Canaanites in friendship – an unnatural condition. This is not a valid view because Native Americans are not Canaanites. Native Americans came to North America from Siberia maybe around 20,000 years ago – long before Canaan even existed in Palestine. The date is revised as more discoveries are made. But the larger question is should any racial group of people be targeted for debasement because of something that happened in the Bible? Some in the WCG deplored Native Americans. Is it now time for them to deplore the Lebanese instead? Should Christians ever relegate anyone to a deplorable state based on ancient Biblical events?
75 comments:
Great article Scout, yea the WCGs unwritten rule was that the native Americans were the Canaanites or I read where Armstrong had blacks as Canaanites to basically justify some of their doctrines to coincide with the history of Israel entering the promise land and the foundation of America. Thirteen colonies, thirteen tribes etc. America must get to those deportations if they……
Anonymous 7:09
The Canaanites were thought to be any people who occupied the lands where "Israel" entered. That is the model, unofficially. This would then include the Maori, the Australian Aborigines, the Lapplanders in addition to the Native Americans. I once had a book written by a WCG member that claimed this. But he was not a minister and had no official capacity.
But I never heard that model preached from the pulpit. What I heard from pulpit or from publications was that the Canaanites were Native Americans or West African Blacks. The West African Blacks do not fit the model stated in the previous paragraph. I believe they were counted as Canaanites because they were enslaved by Europeans.
I believe there was some justification of Early America in this. Instead of the Early Americans being guilty of crimes against the Native Americans and West African Blacks, they were only doing what the Torah said to do. They were good ol' White patriots. That kind of thinking attracted a lot of strange people to Armstrongism.
Even back in the Seventies it was pretty obvious that the West African Blacks and Native Americans could not both be Canaanites. So, I wrote to Herman Hoeh and brought this point up. He had a smooth answer. He said that the Native Americans were descended from Tiras but Tiras had married one of the daughters of Canaan, making Native Americans both descendants of Tiras and Canaan.
This, we now know from genetics, is fascetious. But we must remember that Hoeh did not have genetics to aid his analysis. He worked from arcane texts. He actually sent me a copy of the material on Tiras marrying the daughter of Canaan. I think if was an early text from somewhere in Africa. I don't know how he found so many erroneous sources.
The West African Blacks and Native Americans are totally unrelated to eachother and neither people stems from Caanaan. But they entered Hoeh's Legendarium as Canaanites. My guess is that there are Armstrongists who very much believe this and could not be convinced otherwise. It so nicely fits British Israelism. It is the case of using BI as a hermeutic to interpret history rather than using history and science to interpret BI.
I don't know where the Armstrongist denominations stand on this today. But it used to be heavy duty with some people - you know, your obnoxious uncle who talks about the Compendium all the time.
Scout
Seems strange the resident alleged guru Hoeh wanted to make them Canaanites with no evidence. Then one wonders why.
I'm thinking that only people who are stuck in the Old Covenant could rationalize this sort of extermination. Years ago, I read the works of Josephus. Amongst other things, Josephus was a military man. I had taken special note at that time that he had made a very poignant remark about people who followed Jesus. He said that he had no use for them because it ruined them as soldiers. To me, your anecdote, Scout, offers yet another proof that Armstrongism is not truly a Christian religion. This is one of several examples in which Armstrongism fostered decidedly anti-Christian attitudes, and apparently even Josephus would recognize that. They're not like the First Century Christians at all, sabbath or no sabbath!
Even in the times of the temples, it was possible for gentiles to participate,, up to a certain level, in the Hebrew religion. Attitude was always the key back in those days, not skin pigmentation.
I live in a state where there are numerous tribal lands, or reservations, and interact with Native Americans who work in the big cities on a daily basis. I've been fascinated with the Native culture from the time of the Billy Jack movies of my youth, and love factually correct TV series in which there are Native characters. One of the best such programs is/was "Longmire", featuring Lou Diamond Phillips, who played the part of Longmire's best friend, Henry Standing Bear. In one episode a conversation was taking place amongst several of the characters as they carried on a conversation in Henry's bar, the Red Pony. As she was leaving, one of the ladies called out, "Happy Thanksgiving, Henry!" Henry quickly quipped, "You mean Thankstaking?" with an accompanying facial expression that just told it all!
I found that to be a very good way for a television show to subtly present another perspective. Kind of like the old Joe South song, "Walk A Mile In My Shoes." Those sorts of things stimulate one reimagine things in a way that advances one spiritually. In fact, several years later, I remembered it when doing some work for a Native lady the day before Thanksgiving. I knew from past conversations that she had been taken from her family as a young girl and put through one of the "boarding schools" (That does NOT mean the same thing as it does to us Anglo-Saxon gentiles!) At my other customer locations during the early part of the day, I had wished the people Happy Thanksgiving on the way out the door. I was thinking it might be hurtful to my friend if I wished her the same. But as I closed my tool kit, she said "Happy Thanksgiving, Bob!" I smiled and wished her a Happy Thanksgiving as well. As I drove away, that she could be so forgiving really hit me emotionally.
People who love people don't want to see them exterminated!
BB
"People feel sorry about how Native Americans were treated but they’re the Canaanites!”
I remember growing up and through WCG literature being introduced to the BI theory. I later read more on this subject via various BI literature and learned that some viewed the Southern Europeans, particularly Italians, and even some Irish (ie IRA) as Canaanites. I came from an Italian background myself so was left somewhat confused and disappointed about this as I valued my Italian heritage and loved my extended family and friends. Years later with the advent of genetics I learned that according to BI advocates the majority Y haplogroup in Europe (ie R1b) is supposedly of of the Lost Tribes of Israel. How ironic it was that I would later discover my Y haplogroup was R1b! lol
Anyway my view re identifying modern people groups as "Canaanites" (or some other ancient Biblical people groups) who were ordained by God for extermination when Israel entered the Promised Land and Christians then using those divine commands that were specific to ancient Israel for a specific time period to treat modern people groups appallingly and/or to advocate genocide against them is immoral. Even the Jews seem to be not without fault of this mentality as exemplified with the recent Israel-Palestinian conflict when Zionist PM Netanyahu equated the Palestinians in Gaza with the "Amalekites" who were divinely sanctioned in the OT for annihilation. It really is atrocious that people who profess to follow the Messiah can express such barbarism in their supposedly Christian belief system.
True. It was more if a white washing of America's mythological history than an active call to exterminate "church brethren" hahaha
As an aside... I read the 1860's Church of God bulletins. Funny how they mention the members living in the Dakota amidst the Lalita tribes. Also around that time first Church of God's are established in the Oklahoma territories.
Biggest problems mentioned in the Bulletin seem to be that old lady smoking a pipe and especially a bit later in the cities members going to the "ice skating rink". Academic studies have appeared on the Puritan reaction to the youth behavior around those rinks... Kinda Grease Lightning.
Of course the Ethiopian Emperor visited the Churches of God Council and HWA, was born just a few years after the "cattle wars" when the natives would tour Europe in a Circus.
Nck
In this age we don't exterminate anyone. We preach the gospel to them and welcome those that respond into the fold.
The native American tribes were constantly waring with each other. If they captured their enemy, they would typically torture them for 4 days prior to death. The "save the last bullet for yourself" was good advice when dealing with these natives. So they do not deserve to be respected. The fact that God gave the American continent good weather only with the arrival of whites, informs us about God's opinion of the natives.
There are a couple of issues that emerge from this in my mind. The first is the way that some Armstrongists nonchalantly adopted the view that people should be exterminated. As long as it was in the Torah and a part of WCG groupthink, they seemed to feel that there was no longer a moral issue that they had to consider personally. The Torah completely offset empathy and sympathy. It was as if they had no natural affection that permitted them to recognize that they were advocating genocide. They could comfortably harbor the darkest thoughts a human could have and yet attend services and sing, “All is well, all is well with my soul.”
Second, it seemed like the OT instructions to kill the Canaanites abrogated the New Testament. Jesus said, “love your neighbor.” But some Armstrongists said, “You should kill certain people.” Most Armstrongists, in my experience, did not have the idea that WCG members should kill Native Americans but that the European settlers who came to North America should have. The settlers disobeyed God’s direct instructions by letting some Native Americans live. Even though the settlers did not know they were Israelites and they were to follow the Torah. But this attitude relegated Native Americans to the cruel should-have-been-killed state within the WCG. I recall a WCG member coming up to a Native American member and saying, “How does it feel to belong to a group of people who should have been wiped out?” The whole scenario as not well thought out. But it seemed like a nice fit with BI and the conquest of the Promised Land so it was highly and enthusiastically acceptable.
One of the great ironies is that Gerald Waterhouse would tour the churches and give lurid and melodramatic descriptions of what the Assyrians (Germans) were going to do to the Israelites (US and BC). The audience was appalled. But some of these same people were hard-hearted against Native Americans and American Blacks. And to these same people, the Holocaust of the Jews was horrific but the Holocaust of Native Americans seem to never occur to them. People would marvel at how the German mind could work to produce the Holocaust. And ironically that same mind existed among some people in, I would guess, just about every WCG congregation in the world. And it may still exist in the little Armstrongist denominations.
Scout
I have written on this topic before. Many Armstrongists have either forgotten about it or never knew about it. So, I wrote it up again. I recall having a lengthy conflict with someone on this blog who said they had never, ever heard of this attitde towards Native Amercans and were incredulous. They thought I was just a rabble-rouser making gratuitous claims against Armstrongism. The problem is, there is not one scrap of documentation about this in the archives of Armstrongism. I tried to point out here that the documentation was not necessary. All the pulpit had to do was identify Native Americans as Canaanites and all the rest fell into place. The question is, "Was that a ploy on the part of the pulpit or just an oversight?" Perhaps, there were some ministers who overlooked and would never believe that the pews would believe that what went for the Canaanites should go for the Native Americans. I think that is unlikely. There were too many people in the pews who believed this and were outspoken about it. I believe it was a ploy but in some cases it may have been an oversight. I'll grant that.
Scout
Anonymous 6:30
Thank you for this statement. I was wondering how long it would be in coming. Yes, Native Americans were warlike and cruel. Just like Europeans. The people who committed the atrocities of the Holocaust, the Herrenvolk, were one time regarded as the best of the Europeans. None of the Europeans deserved to have been respected by the Native Americans. The fact is, we are all undeserving.
As for the weather, that is a new one, no doubt rooted in some kind of delusional racism. I have seen weather charts that indicated that a period of calm weather settled onto the world about 4,000 BC. There was an altithermal a long time ago in North America. But Europe had its odd weather as well. Does the Black Plague in the 1300s inform us, for instance, of what God thought of the Europeans?
One of the ploys that early European settlers used to create a pretext for dispossessing Native Americans was to make up Captivity Stories. You have done something similar.
Scout
Back in the '60s, in our Ambassador College classes and at headquarters Friday night Bible Study in the AC Gymnasium, speakers and lecturers made frequent racist statements and comments, very much "on the record" and presented as part of the general package known as "the truth". Of course, we must consider the Zeitgeist of those times, and yes, the general public held many of these same attitudes. The difference was that in our little church, the Bible was cited as eternal authority for these racist attitudes. In a British Israelist setting, genetics were everything!
As an overlapping theme, the "times of the gentiles" was cited as the reason why certain peoples behaved as wild animals in their cities, and families, and were disproportionately represented in prisons and jails. Since they were highly visible in the news as part of the clamor for civil rights, Blacks and Mexicans were frequently discussed in negative terms with regard to their behavioral nuances and alleged basic IQs. Germans, Italians and Arabs were also spoken of in negative terms as being unable to help or control themselves as a general rule, due to the curses of existing in the times of the gentiles.
Of course, if one was "converted", although they had this in their backgrounds, members of these races were no longer under the curses. But, their unconverted family members were! Students from these ethnicities would from time to time contest these remarks, based on personal knowledge gleaned from their own family experiences, but would be shouted down and harshly rebuked by the ministers who had made the remarks.
Native Americans were described as being naturally tribal people who were prone to alcoholism, violence, and mental instability. I've mentioned before the propensity of students diligently searching for Jews in their family tree, as if that would somehow elevate their status. You didn't want to find certain other genetics in your background, or if you had, to make it public knowledge, because ministers and your fellow students would use that to explain your behavior or to marginalize you. This was often done by the Manpower Committee, which monitored those being considered for the ministry or for important positions in the church and at the college. John Trechak had much to write about in his Ambassador Reports, all based upon the actual files from the Manpower Committee meetings which he had been given by someone formerly involved in that committee.
The old WCG was not in the vanguard, or on the cutting edge of recognizing and eliminating racism as the Civil Rights movement progressed. Nobody was marching with Dr. King, or Cesar Chavez. Nobody speaking out on behalf of Leonard Peltier. Instead, remarks were made by church and college officials and speakers to the effect that there were certain truths that we can no longer talk about or have in our official policies, or the government will be coming down on us. Ambassador College and Imperial Schools began to grudgingly admit the offspring of non white church members to both. Then, they had an additional problem with the inevitable "boy meets girl" situations, as miscegenation was at that time a huge reason for being disfellowshipped.
As an individual church member, I was not on the vanguard at that time either. However, my post-WCG life experiences have caused me to re-examine many erroneous attitudes. It wasn't just the belief that the Germans were coming in 1972 and Jesus was coming in 1975 that needed correcting. There was so much more toxic and insidious material that we were taught as truth that was just plain wrong! I'm just so thankful that it was caught and checked relatively early in life!
BB
‘The fact that God gave the American continent good weather only with the arrival of whites, informs us about Gods opinion of these natives’……
Cracked up reading this.
Damn, spilled me beer everywhere.
Sometimes the comments here are more entertaining than the post itself.
“It really is atrocious that people who profess to follow the Messiah can express such barbarism in their supposedly Christian belief system“
Yea 10:34 , “that whole weapons of our warfare are not carnal” goes out of the window with them.
6:30 The weather my guy? How about all those diseases the Europeans brought over to the Native Americans. The measles, mumps, chickenpox, smallpox, diphtheria, influenza, pneumonia, typhoid that killed many of them.
Wasn’t Manasseh suppose to bring blessings to all the earth, especially to the people that helped them grow certain crops.
Many Mormons dont know this either, but the LDS Church actually believes that the Native Americans are actually descended from the "Lost 10 Tribes" !
Only gave the American continent good weather when white people showed up? What retarded bullshit are you talking?
"The fact that God gave the American continent good weather only with the arrival of whites, informs us about God's opinion of the natives."
This has to be the most WTF comment ever made on here!
6:30. You wrote: "The fact that God gave the American continent good weather only with the arrival of whites, informs us about God's opinion of the natives."
Can you provide a source for this? It intrigues me.
BB's essay reminds me of an old joke. An immigrant boy from Mexico is complimented by his American teacher for his grasp of the English language and told: "You are a real American now."
Upon telling his still proud father and uncle he gets beaten bad for forsaking his Latin heritage.
Later his, teacher asks about the bruises everywhere. Hesitantly the boy explains. "I'd been a real American for 1 day and I got abused by a bunch of Wetbacks.
Nck
Byker 9:15
I was told something really alarming by a guy who attended AC Pasadena back in the Sixties. He said that Blacks and Browns were not permitted to attend AC because their minds were not capable of understanding the spiritual content of the education. AC, he said, was for "Israelites" only.
You cannot find anything like this in Pauline Theology. In fact, it does not really comport with the OT. It is a uniquely Armstrongist viewpoint. It likely stems from the Curse of the Gentiles you referred to. I am not sure any other religious organization gives credence to such a curse. What they did was relegate "Gentiles" to a sub-human level with no understanding that they too were Gentiles. It is ludicrous but not in a funny way. In a pathetic way.
Scout
Tonto
I mentioned elsewhere on the blog that I am interested in how the Mormons handled this situation. I know many Mormons who are highly technicial people. They do not blanch at advanced physics.
Native Americans are y chromosome haplogroup Q, at one time before intermixing, almost entirely. i think there might have been a little haplogroup P. All people are related to eachother. It is just a matter of how long ago they split from eachother and how many mutations have happened since.
We all came from y chromosome haplogroup A Blacks in Africa. I think that would cause many Armstrongists to choke.
Overall, the North West Europeans and Native Americans are about as far from the Jews genetically as you can get.
Scout
I agree that that is alarming, Scout. I have met super intelligent and talented Black and Brown people over my lifetime, including some pretty incredible people who were church members working right under these "brilliant" Armstrongite theorists' noses! Truly, there is none so blind as one who will not see! One very gifted black engineer had a degree from Howard University prior to coming to Ambassador, and designed the electronics for an inline Zip Code Sorter which I was commissioned to test in the mailing system my crew and I ran at Ambassador Press.
One of the charades which was exposed back in the 1960s was the supposed absolute value of standard IQ testing. Since largely white people had developed them, the tests were based on the life experiences and typical education of a white person of middle class status. Those who came from other backgrounds did not test well in them. Alternate tests were created based on similar metrics from the black and brown experience, and administered to white people, and guess whose IQ's then showed as deficient? The conclusion was that the broad intelligence averages of all races were basically comparable with one another. They just manifested themselves in different ways, consistent with the background and environments of those tested.
There was a huge revolution in education during the 1960s. Prior to that, guidance counsellors would automatically guide black and brown students towards trades and the manual arts, and white students towards college. There were strikes and demonstrations over this at Garfield High in East L.A.
For those who do not know, Garfield High School is where Jaime Escalante taught calculus to Chicano students, and the movie "Stand and Deliver" is based upon his career as a teacher there. My girlfriend from the 1980s' cousin played the part of Jaime Escalante in that movie!
BB
Byker
We are now witnessing the outcome of Blacks and Browns trying to get a foothold in American Society. Trump won 71 percent of the White vote. Somewhere in the future, probably the near future, the stress is going to be too much.
Scout
Scout “The whole scenario is not well thought out.” I know right!!
Like they like to claim to love God’s law, and understand when the New Covenant came in. But when it came to the European settlers, the New Covenant and God’s Law didn’t apply to them as they were wiping out the natives. They rail against protestantism, agnostics and catholicism, but that’s what many of them are. They act as though the European settlers who they esteem as Israelites were a part of the old covenant. Whenever these splinter groups write an article on Thanksgiving in their magazines, they tie to being thankful to God, but never mention the fatal treatment towards the Native Americans. It’s a slippery slope going down that BI rabbit hole.
Tank
BB Great Post,
Yea the old WCG couldn’t inculcate the words of Christ and the writings of the apostle Paul and the rest of the NT writers. To love your neighbor as oneself, and to have a special love towards your “brother” in Christ. It’s hard to do that when the attitude is, “I’m an Israelite christian and you’re not.” After reading that October 1963 Plain Truth magazine issue, I was like oh so this is how it was/is. And correct, the 72/75 blunder is one thing, but for them to continue in that toxic attitude. Even things spoken of during spokesman's club had unfiltered racism.
Tank
Look people despite all your arguments to the contrary WCG taught only one thing.
The Good 'Ol USA was the fulfillment of Gods Promise to Abraham.....Never in a million years could God have foreseen that while making that promise to Abraham, the Appalachian Scottish boys implementation of the whole thing was acted out of colonial trauma having been victims of eviction themselves.
nck
5:19 “In this age we don't exterminate anyone. We preach the gospel to them and welcome those that respond into the fold”…until a Cult allies with a State and that’s when the mantra “convert or die” is followed in their objective to eliminate any and all competition as attested to by history.
NCK 1:32
I believe that blessings that have overtaken the USA have to do with the promises made to Abraham. Without a doubt, the USA is an anomaly. It is a great Gentile nation but has received extraordinary blessings in many dimensions. The USA is the most powerful and capable Gentile nation to ever exist. What is so amazing is that this has happened under a government that is a democracy rather than the autocracy we find in many Gentile nations. Only now after over 200 years are we beginning to depart the blessings of Abraham and segue towards autocracy.
But the people of the USA receive the blessings of Abraham not as his descendants but as the helpers of Abraham’s descendants. God said to Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you (Genesis 12:3).” While the USA has not always been warmly inclined towards the Jews, it has adopted a much more favorable attitude towards the Jews than other Gentile nations. Think of the pogroms of Eastern Europe. If the USA ever becomes a wholly anti-Semitic nation, I believe you will see the USA collapse. And I believe the present curtailment of our blessings is correlated to the rising tide of anti-Semitism in North America. I can hardly imagine how God feels about denominations that claim they are “Israelite” but are not.
My conjecture is that if God withdraws the blessings of Abraham from us, the USA will end up being an economically disadvantaged autocracy like Argentina was - which is probably what we should have been all along save for being a safe harbor for persecuted Jews.
Scout
I agree, Scout. White alone non-Hispanic % of population was 57.8% in the 2020 census. This was down from the 63.7% reported in the 2010 census.
I'm certain that the Trump machine is aware of the math trends leading to the 2030 census. That math will influence the Trump administrations' policies in massive, unprecedented ways. We're nearly half way to 2030!
BB
Off-topic and errors and omissions excepted:
Prince Andrew, the second son of the late Queen Elizabeth II, has a right to the throne of Britain. But he can only inherit the throne if his brother, his brother’s children, and his brother’s grandchildren all die.
This leads to the question, if the line of the throne of David runs through Zedekiah’s daughters, and there are numerous members of the royal family alive today, how does Jesus inherit the throne of David?
The norm in the kingdom of Judah was male-primogeniture; of course, God can override this, with Solomon, the fourth and youngest son of Bathesaba (1 Chr 3:5), being a prime example.
Jer 52:31 And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evil-merodach king of Babylon in the first year of his reign lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison,
Twenty-five or so years after the fall of Jerusalem Jehoiachin KING OF JUDAH (cp. Eze 1:2), was released from prison. This appendix to Jeremiah and 2 Kings has been likened to Elijah’s little cloud (1 Kings 18:43-45). Here in the dark days of Judah, there is hope for the future, a descendant of David lives on in Babylon.
From Jeremiah 29 it may be seen that the hope for the future of the Jews was with the exiles of Jehoiachin’s captivity, not with the “vile figs” in Judah with Zedekiah.
2 Kings 25:15 notes that Jehoiachin’s wives also went into captivity.
Jer 22:28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, HE AND HIS SEED [ZERA‘], AND ARE CAST INTO A LAND WHICH THEY KNOW NOT?
Jer 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed [zera‘] shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
Does this ‘curse’ apply only to Jehoiachin’s seed born in Judah, or does it also apply to the seed born in Babylon? Could a descendant of a seed of Jehoiachin born in Babylon get to legally sit on the throne of David in the future?
(This reminds one that the person who succeeded David on his throne was not of the seed born to him in Hebron but of the seed born to him in Jerusalem).
This leads to Zerubbabel (lit., “seed of Babylon”):
Hag 1:14 And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of the LORD of hosts, their God,
On two occasions, concerning two related individuals, it is mentioned that the Lord had a signet ring:
Jer 22: 24 “As I Live - Yahweh’s word - Coniah ben Jehoiakim king of Judah shall not be the signet ring [chotham] on my right hand. Yes, Coniah, I will pull you off” (translation by J. A. Thompson).
Hag 2:23 In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the LORD, and will make thee as a signet [chotham]: for I have chosen thee, saith the LORD of hosts.
David was rewarded with a “house” when he desired to build a house for the Lord (2 Sam 7:11). Solomon was rewarded with an everlasting dynasty for building God’s house (2 Sam 7:13). From Solomon’ time on only a descendant of Solomon could sit legally on the throne of David.
Part 2
It is suggested that Zerubbabel was rewarded for his part in building the second temple. The curse spoken over Jehoiachin is reversed in his grandson - symbolized by making Zerrubbabel God’s signet. The implication from Haggai is that a descendant of Zerubbabel, when the time was right, would be the next person to sit on the throne of David after Zedekiah, who was in effect sitting on the throne acting as a regent for the legitimate king in Babylonian captivity.
The Messiah then would have to be a descendant of Solomon, Sheatiel and Zerubbabel as this was the legitimate royal line.
But there is a twist. Sheatiel was not Zerubbabel’s biological father. Pediah, brother of Sheatiel, was Zerrubbabel’s biological father who provided an heir for his brother Sheatiel.
So Zerubbabel’s inclusion in the line of inheritance for the throne of David was through his legal father not his biological father.
Zerubbabel, through whom the curse was reversed, provides the ‘type” for his descendant who would be Yahweh’ future signet. Jesus inherits the throne of David through his legal father, not through God, his ‘biological’ father :). (What haplogroup?).
Matthew’s gospel has a focus on Jesus as KING; Mark with Jesus as Servant; Luke as Man; and John as God; which hints at the four faces of a cherub - lion, ox, man and eagle.
In Matthew’s genealogy David is not simply the son of Jesse (Luke 3:31-32) but he is "king David" (Matt. 1:6).
Only in this gospel does one read of One who was “born king of the Jews” (Mt 2:2).
Matthew uses king David’s name seventeen times, more than any other book of the New Testament.
Also in Matthew’s genealogy David and Jehoiachin are the first and last kings of the dynasty of Judah. Zedekiah is not mentioned as the royal line does not flow through him.
Joseph is the only one in the NT to be said to be of the House of David. Of those living in NT times only Joseph and Jesus are addressed as “son of David”.
Of the thirteen occurrences of the expression "Son of David" in the NT, nine are found in found in Matthew - more than double of all the other books combined; in three other verses "son" is supplied to give the sense, one of which is also in Matthew.
Lk 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Lk 1:32b and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
"In v.27 Luke calls Joseph "a descendant of David." Even though the genealogy in 3:23-37 is often taken as showing Mary's line, this is never stated. Neither does Luke nor any other NT writer say that Mary was descended from David. Since Joseph is named here and in 3:23 and is explicitly linked with the royal line, we should probably assume that Luke considers Jesus a legitimate member of the royal line by what we today might call the right of adoption. This has an important bearing on the promises in 32b" (Walter L. Liefeld Luke, EBC, Vol.8, p.830).
Part 3
Mt 1:16a And Jacob begat Joseph
Lk 3:23b Joseph, which was the son of Heli
Lk 3:24a Which was the son of Matthat,
With so many twists and turns over centuries one cannot be sure what is the correct interpretation. Mary may have been an only child, hence no brothers, so that when she marries Joseph Heli adopts Jacob as his heir so that Matthew gives Joseph’s ancestry by birth and Luke by adoption.
Lk 1:36a And behold, Elisabeth thy kinswoman, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; (ASV).
The speculation is that Mary was like her forefather Eleazar, the second high priest — that is Mary’s father was of the tribe of Levi and her mother was of the tribe of Judah; just as Eleazar’s father was of the tribe of Levi and his mother was of the tribe of Judah (Ex 6:23a & Num 7:12).
Add to this, though there is no indication, it is suggested that just as Zerubbabel the son of Sheatiel was rewarded for the part he played in building the second, his building partner, Joshua the son of Josedech, was also to be rewarded by having the Messiah come from his line and this is fulfilled through Mary. If so Mary would provide the biological link to Zerubbabel and Joshua.
The building of the Temple by Solomon the Davidic king and God taking residence in the holy of holies established an intertwining connection.
When God left the first temple it resulted not only in the destruction of the Temple but it also spelled the end of descendants of David sitting on the throne of David, for the time being. God’s departure to Babylon (Eze 11:16, 23) as well as the heirs to the throne of the Lord looked forward to their return.
Eze 43:7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever,
The throne of David can only be restored, with a Davidic king sitting on the throne, around the time of the restoration of God’s kingship in the holy of holies in the Messianic Temple. God had a dwelling in Solomon’s temple through the Word of God. With Jesus coming to the earth to die, so that the covenant with Israel could be renewed on better promises, He could not have a “presence” in the second temple at the same time. That is one cannot have a dwelling presence in the temple while also while dying on the stauros. Similarly when Jesus returns to dwell in the holy of holies (Eze 43:7a) He cannot also be ruling on the throne of David. At the end of the second half of Christ’s prophetic week He will appoint one of his relatives to rule for him. Just as He appointed Peter as His shepherd at the end of His first half week (John 21:15-17). With the death of Christ, James his half-brother, was now heir-apparent to the throne of David, so it was probably not surprising that James became head of the Jerusalem church; and by extension the head of the Israel of God.
1Ch 28:5b he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.
2Ch 9:8a Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne,
Just as the “law of Moses” was the law of God delivered by Moses, as mediator, so “the throne of David” was the throne of Lord occupied by Davidic kings. The Davidic kings ruled the “kingdom of the Lord” as God’s vice-regents.
To suggest that the throne of Britain is the throne of the Lord, and the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the “kingdom of the Lord” would be a big call.
It may sound silly to say, Nck, but generational trauma is a real thing. I've been delving into a grandmothers life lately - not just what happened to her, but how she reacted to the awful things that befell her... and I see how she inadvertantly passed some of that down to her kids and grandkids.
'To suggest that the throne of Britain is the throne of the Lord and ....of Great Britain & Northern Ireland....would be a big call'. Yes indeed. Jesus is descended from David via his brother Nathan as the Solomonic line was destroyed irreversibly. BI and its pretensions are purely myth. Scripture is rather clear on His genealogy. Scouts post on the North American Indians is educational and well done. Another nail in the myths surrounding Armstrongism.
RSK
It's a real thing. I was not joking. The Bible is very very clear about generational trauma.
And yes Scout. When my neighborhood is blessed.. It spills over.
BTW anyone ever had a look at the picture of the young descendants of the family that ruled the Ottoman Empire for 700 years.
Their (rulerclass) genetics made the case for BI in the 19th century.
Nck
God promised prosperity beyond imagination and many nations would profit from that.
Nowhere is it follow upped by. Now gather yourselves millions of slaves, destroy the bison and the people that eat the bison, have them warbirds fly over the stadiums as a spectacle to behold and hell ya 'Murica go henceforth and goeth to the Iraqueth....
Nck
Scout said “But the people of the USA receive the blessings of Abraham not as his descendants but as the helpers of Abraham’s descendants. God said to Abraham, ‘I will bless those who bless you (Genesis 12:3).’”
The Americans received the blessings of Abraham as Christians through Jesus Christ (Gal 3:16, 26-29). The further the people have moved away from the Christian ethos and/or undermined the foundational Christian principles shoring up the civil institutions of the nation the worse it has gotten and will only get.
Anonymous Parts 1, 2, 3
I am going to express something about the throne of David that is way outside the pale of Armstrongism. First, let me say that your write-up does illustrate what I tried to convey in writing about the Paleo-Indians. Armstrongists have read into scripture some ideas about Native Americans. They have also tried to read into scripture ideas about the throne of David. In principle, these are the same error – just different details.
The problem is that the Armstrongist concern about the throne of David is teleological. Armstrongists begin with the idea that they want to demonstrate that the throne of the British monarchs is the throne of David. So, they wrest scripture and pseudo-history to prove this. And then what you end up with is an amalgam of just that – pseudo-history and scripture. It is something that is imaginative rather than realistic narrative.
For me the issue does not require a big dash of pseudo-history. Jesus is the King of the Jews (the King of everything actually) and was descended from David. He has a throne and it is not the throne of the British monarchs. It is his own throne in heaven. He makes the throne what it is. The throne does not make him. If he sits on it, it is the throne of the King of the Jews who is a descendant of David. If Jesus sits at the right hand of God, whatever chair he sits on becomes the throne of David. The throne of the British monarchs is the throne of the British monarchs because that is who sits on it, whatever its historical provenance might be.
The idea that the throne of the British monarchs is the literal throne on which Christ will sit when he returns is just another fable in the BI Legendarium. This is based on the idea that the throne is an object separate from Jesus. Jesus says in Revelation 3:21 that we will sit on his throne with him. I think it is clear that we are not talking about something that a carpenter has made. We are talking about the authority and glory of Christ as a concept and not an object. The throne is a symbol of his authority and glory. So, I don’t really care about Zedekiah’s daughters. Everything culminates in Jesus – throne, lineage and all.
Scout
Amen , I’ll drink to that.
Well, people hear "generational trauma" and think we mean some sort of nebulous "genetic identity" and dismiss it, which is not what is usually meant (although that aspect does have its believers).
Well said Scout.
Most of those who revolted against the Chaldeans and fled to Egypt perished.
Scripture is clear on their demise. A few survivors did afterwards return to Zion. The king’s daughters likely died in Egypt also. To infer they miraculously turned up in the British isles or Ireland is ridiculous. Jeremiah quite possibly died and is buried in Egypt. Like you I don’t put any value on the fact that the king’s daughters went to Egypt. The destruction of Israel and Judah were all part of the journey, with all its inherent lessons; leading to the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His atoning work. Hallelujah to that I say.
You know, early ancient Egyptian diplomats used to comment that the best thing about being home was that they got to sleep on beds - most of the Fertile Crescent nations they were stationed in didnt use beds, people just slept on the floor on pallets or wrapped in blankets.
For all the ballyhooing of Davids throne among the COGs, wouldnt it be something if it was just a rickety ass stool or some other unimpressive chair by our standards?
RSK
I understand. I'm well aware of the phenomenon through the European and Asian Death Camps, Birma Railroad.
Nck
Scout,
Great word about the throne of David which is something physical like the temple. It’s no different than if someone were to preserve the ark of the covenant. The Apostle John in vision was able to see it not underneath the earth somewhere (Rev. 11:19), so who cares if Indiana Jones could locate it. The throne designates rulership, and Christ told His disciples that they would sit on thrones judging too in the regeneration. And since God’s kingdom is not of this world, why in the world should we concern ourselves with the British throne in this life (unless I am being colonized). BI is a physical misconstruction of the gospel.
Tank
I made this statement in a previous comment: “I think it is clear that we are not talking about something that a carpenter has made. “
It is needless to say but I will say it anyway: The idea that God sits on a throne is anthropomorphic. God does not have a body and he does not sit down in his essential existence. He may be on a throne in theophany but not in his essence. God in his essence is spirit. If he created a throne as an object, he created the substance out of which a throne would be made, whether something material we would be familiar with or something more durable in the spirit realm. He created everything that was created. If his throne were uncreated, then it would be something divine in its ontology and would be comparable to God himself. It is not characterized in this way in scripture. The question we are led to is, “Does the throne have an objective existence or is it entirely subjective?” I don’t know. It probably doesn’t make any difference.
Scout
Zechariah 6:12-13 Then speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, saying: “Behold, the Man whose name is the BRANCH! From His place He shall branch out, And He shall build the temple of the Lord; Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, And shall sit and rule on His throne; So He shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (both offices)
Seems like the Carpenter is getting His old job back. I don't know.
Tank
The Branch is of course Jesus.
Zec 6:12-13 has the Branch as King; Zec 3:8b the Branch as Servant: “I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH”; Zec 6:12 has the Branch as Man: “Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and the rather obscure Isa 4:2a has the Branch as God: “In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious”.
The Branch as King, Servant, Man and God is developed in the four Gospels.
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD ... and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
The Branch will build the Messianic Temple; and He will be a king and priest on his throne. While the Messiah will build the Temple, he will not literally sit on the throne, but will appoint his relatives to fulfill this role. This is indirect human messianic prophecy as opposed to indirect divine messianic prophecy.
When it is said that the Branch will be king and priest on his throne this is not a merging of the Davidic kingship and Aaronic priesthood but the reinstitution of the Davidic kingship and the Melchizedek priesthood in one person.
Ps 110:0 A Psalm of David.
Ps 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Ps 110:4 The LORD hath sworn ... Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
It is likely David wrote this psalm during his co-regency with Solomon. Solomon was acting king for the infirm David. The sense:
So the LORD (God) said unto my [David’s] Lord (Solomon) sit on my right hand while I put your enemies under your feet.
This is to be understood in the same sense as when “the LORD put his [David’s] enemies under his feet” (1 Kgs 5:3-4). Using NT terminology: God was in David defeating his enemies, cp. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (2 Cor 5:19); see also Ps 110:5 where God is at the king’s right hand.
Solomon’s enemies would probably include Adonijah, Joab and Shimei.
When Solomon became king he was to build the temple and so he was appointed as priest of the “order of Melchizedek”. With the building of the Temple the Davidic kings were to be patrons of the Temple and of Temple worship; and it is this role that defines the human Melchizedek priesthood. This was in a sense an official conformation of the priesthood role of the Davidic kings as David was so acting, when dressed in a linen ephod, he brought the ark to Jerusalem and offered sacrifices, where in the account no Levitical priest was mentioned in the sacrificing.
So around the time of the building of the First Temple the Davidic king was appointed to the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. So in Zechariah with the building of the Messianic Temple the Davidic king is reappointed to the order of Melchizdek.
In the Messianic Age the Davidic prince will be responsible for providing the burnt offerings, the grain offerings, the peace offerings, purification offerings and drink offerings for the “appointed times” (Eze 45:17); and the bullock for the Passover purification offering (45:22).
When Solomon became king, he did not for most of his reign literally sit on David’s throne as he built his own throne:
1Ki 10:18 Moreover the king made a great throne of ivory, and overlaid it with the best gold.
1Ki 10:19 The throne had six steps, and the throne had a calf’s head in back of it: and there were stays on either side on the place of the seat, and two lions stood beside the stays.
1Ki 10:20 And twelve lions stood there on the one side and on the other upon the six steps...
An unpointed ‘gl can read “calf” as in 1 Sam 28:21; “calf’s head” is taken from Simon J. DeVries translation).
So for the first temple there was an appointment of a Davidic king to a priestly role and a building of a throne; so for the Millennial temple a Davidic king is to be reappointed to a priestly role; and also a building of a throne?
Here you go again, reveal yourself 2:09, 😊
But some of the resurrected saints will help build the Lord's temple along with Christ (the Master) .
Zechariah 6:15 Even those from afar shall come and build the temple of the Lord. Then you shall know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you. And this shall come to pass if you diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God.”
Revelation 7:15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.
from afar (Rev 7:9)
Tank
I quite agree there Scout. I do believe one reason the UK is a shadow of itself is because of its division of the Holy Land. God will contend with the nations because of this as we read. The USA has been extraordinarily blessed and I believe that is primarily because of its friendship with Israel and it providing a safe haven for the Jews. Including my own family who fled from the holocaust to Cuba and then on into the USA in 1942. And also because of its strong Christian heritage. As they abandon their heritage and become more antagonistic towards Israel, as we have been witnessing in the political sphere and on campus, its prosperity and prestige will undoubtedly decline. I do not believe this astonishing nation is an anomaly but was indeed forecast within scripture. But that is for another time.
Thrones
There are four thrones that matter — two in heaven and two on earth. The ones on earth are antitypes of the two in heaven — this is vertical typology.
The ‘throne’ in Revelation 7:15 is God’s throne in the heavenly most holy place.
The earthly counterpart to the heavenly is the MHP in the Jerusalem Temple, cp. “this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet” (Eze 43:7a) for the Messianic Age.
In the time of David and before Solomon built his palace, one goes down from Temple Mount to “the City of David, which is Zion” (1 Ki 8:1b), where David had his throne. This throne of the earthly David is the antitype of the heavenly throne.
Rev 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
F. F. Bruce makes this observation on the above verse:
"As the earthly Zion was the meeting point for the tribes of the old Israel [cp. 1 Kings 8:1], so the heavenly Zion is the meeting point for the new Israel..." (F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Hebrews, NICNT, pp, p.356).
Typology suggest that Christ’s throne (Rev 3:21), in the Messianic Age, is in the heavenly Zion. So that a human king will sit on the throne of David in earthly Jerusalem and a divine king will sit on the heavenly counterpart in the heavenly Jerusalem.
Eph 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
Eph 2:6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,
Satan is presently sitting on the throne that Christ will inherit. When Satan and the demons are removed from office Christ and the Saints will take their place.
This is pictured by David capturing the strong hold of Zion and making it the capital of the United Kingdom of Israel and Judah.
Andrew Hill makes this comment:
"David captures intact a functioning bureaucratic center. This means David need only place his own "civil servants" into a ready-made political structure as he organizes his kingdom" (1 & 2 Chronicles, NIVAC, p.200).
To what extent this was true in the time of David it will be true in the time of the greater David when He places his own civil servants, the saints, in the positions of rulership that the demons now exercise.
So instead of demon kings of Persia and Greece (Dan 10:13, 20) there will be saint kings of Persia and Greece. This pictures the “kingly” role of the saints. The “priestly” role of the saints will be before the throne of God in the heavenly MHP as pictured in Rev 7:15.
Heaven in the book of Hebrews is the MHP.
It is suggested that the “heavenly places” referred to in Ephesians, in a specific sense, is the lower realm of heaven — that is, the holy place of heaven. The ark in the MHP pictures the realm of God and the lampstand in the holy place pictures the (future) realm of Christ.
Okay, what about the day or night? In the end Rev 21, 22, there is no night
Revelation 21:25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). (context: New Jerusalem, Father & Son make up the temple) v. 22
Revelation 22:5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.
They serve day and night
Revelation 7:15 Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.
I guess there is night in the third heaven with the thunderings and lightings, (Rev. 4:8). OT (1 Kings 8:29).
Rev 20:10 And the devil ... shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Rev 21:25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.
If you are in the city there is no more night; so Satan must be in a place where there is an alternation of day and night :)
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night IN his temple:
Rev 7:17 For the Lamb which is IN the midst of the throne
Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb ARE the temple of it.
In Rev 7 God and Christ are IN God’s temple; but in Revelation God and Christ ARE the Temple.
In Revelation 7 God and Christ are in the heavenly sanctuary and in Rev 21-22 they are in the city that comes down from heaven.
It is suggested that Rev 7 is of a dispensation that precedes the one in Revelation 21-22.
With no more night it will one great day. This pictures the goal of God’s plan (Lev 23:36b).
Lk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry DAY AND NIGHT unto him, though he bear long with them?
Lk 24:53 And were CONTINUALLY in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
The terms “day and night” form a hendiasdys meaning a twenty-four day, which by extension means “without ceasing” or “without interruption”...
Ne 1:6 Let thine ear now be attentive, and thine eyes open, that thou mayest hear the prayer of thy servant, which I pray before thee now, day and night...
1Ti 5:5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
“There are a number of Jewish and Christian texts in which the hendiadys “day and night” is used hyperbolically for lengthy or continuous prayer or divine service (Neh 1:6; Ps 88:1; Luke 18:7; 1 Thes 3:10; 1Tim 5:5; 2 Tim 1:3)” (David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5, p.302).
Lk 2:37 and she was a widow of about eighty-four years, who DID NOT DEPART THE TEMPLE, serving [latreuousa] with fastings and prayers night and day. (BLB).
Lk 24:53 And were CONTINUALLY IN THE TEMPLE, praising and blessing God. Amen.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve [latreuousin] him DAY AND NIGHT in his temple:
“Day and night” is an idiom meaning unceasingly or without pause... The same verb is used of Anna the prophetess, who “never left the temple but worshipped night and day...” (Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev., NICNT, p.165).
“Verse 37b holds in parallel two clauses: “she never left the temple” and “but worshipped there with fasting and prayer night and day”. The latter spells out the importance of the former, and both make their point — the extraordinary devotion of Anna to the God of the temple — by hyperbole” (Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT, p.151).
Yea, I knew about Anna the prophetess. Good stuff man. Day and Night!
In interpreting the Book of Revelation, you skate on thin ice if you make presumptions about what is spiritually meant and what is physical. I have skated that ice many times and it is never an easy glide. The fact is, Revelation is not history or futurology, it is apocalyptic literature. Yet, I have cited Revelation along with everyone else as if I knew what it really said.
I think some parts of the book are beautifully poetic, even ecstatic. But poetry and ecstasy are not the measure of scripture. Athanasius included the Book of Revelation in the canon against significant opposition from the leadership of the churches. The book is like speaking in tongues in the early church. You need not only a speaker but also an interpreter or nobody is going to benefit. I don’t think we have ever had a good interpreter for the Book of Revelation.
I like these words from C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:
“All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible . . . People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, me meant that we were to lay eggs.”
This has gone far afield from my tiny treatise on the place of Native Americans in Armstrongism. I admit I do not know what Armstrongists currently believe about this topic. I would like to think they are now more enlightened. We must all be brought to the foot of the Cross in our time.
Scout
One of my favorite funniest passages in the book of revelation is one of the elders asking John who are these people. And the Apostle John is like, how in the world am I supposed to know who they are, you know. LOL
Revelation 7:13-14 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”So he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
But yea here is the apostle john who has God’s spirit, and who are we to decipher each and every aspect of this book. We can keep trying, but you’re right Scout.
Tank
One of the difficulties in grasping what actually took place in the Bible is the pervasiveness of hyperbole in the recounting history in the ancient near east coupled with the problem of applying modern western logic to ancient near eastern thought forms.
This morning I was looking at the command of Christ to the apostles to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, that is the southern house of Israel not the northern house of Israel (Isa 8:14 refers to two houses of Israel).
Of course the Samaritans came up. I looked them up on Wikipedia and the article had this to say:
“Archaeologist Eric Cline takes an intermediate view. He believes only 10–20% of the Israelite population (i.e. 40,000 Israelites) were deported to Assyria in 720 BCE. About 80,000 Israelites fled to Judah whilst between 100,000 and 230,000 Israelites remained in Samaria. The latter intermarried with the foreign settlers, thus forming the Samaritans.” This came from his book entitled: “Eden To Exile: Unravelling Mysteries of the Bible”.
I also came across his youtube lecture on his updated book entitled “After 1177 BC”.
For those why may unaware of the lecture here is the url — youtube.com/watch?v=HQa6yvIMuKQ — the actual presentation begins at 12:45.
Below are two comments to a couple of articles a few month ago.:
* Spotcheck Billy, September 21, 2024:
A pharaoh makes a reservation in a restaurant:
"Can I reserve a table for two?"
"Sure just give me a name."
"Semerkhet."
"Would you spell it for me?"
"Bird, double triangle, wavy line, another bird, dog head, sun, scarab..."
* Curio, September 17, 2024:
All those “history” books involving origin of races leave me rather perplexed. They do not give any explanation, scientific or not, how the dark-skinned, black-eyed and hair people from Central Asia moved West into Europe and they turned into blue-eye blond.
Please man......all blond blue eyes come from Central Asia. Many graves with tattooed Redheads, in Northern China.
Non of you will get it.
Nck
Anon 5:57:23 AM PST
John the Baptist was in the deserts until his manifestation to Israel. Israel was there, right before before him and Jesus, whom were alluded to as sheep without a shepherd. Nehemiah and Ezra tell us numerous times about the elders of Israel gathering at the feasts and the tribes of Israel there also, after their captivity in Chaldea.They weren’t lost. Isaiah tells Jacob to flee from Babylon a number of times. Only a relatively small number of Israelites were taken captive, but the ruling classes and monarchy were destroyed. And hence the northern kingdom deceased from being a functioning state. Israel was lost only in the sense that they failed to see their Messiah their true Shepherd before them.
Anonymous 5:57 wrote, “All those “history” books involving origin of races leave me rather perplexed. They do not give any explanation, scientific or not, how the dark-skinned, black-eyed and hair people from Central Asia moved West into Europe and they turned into blue-eye blond.”
Mutation happens. Genetic drift happens. Genetic bottlenecks happen. The original haplogroup R people, giving rise to Western Europeans, were dark people back about 24,000 YA. But by 17,000 YA they were carrying a mutation for blonde hair. At one point in ancient history, Europeans had dark skin and blue eyes – a combination that is not often found today. This happens in nature. Think about dogs. All of them descend from wolves. The German shepherd the weenie dog both descend from the same source. The two breeds have followed different sequences of mutations. But they are both wolf-descended dogs. And both developed into a larger populations that become known as a “breed” but are nevertheless all the same species. I believe there is less diversity among humans than among dogs.
Some people really do not want to believe this – to the point of denying science so they can retain a prideful view of their racial purity. We know, however, that there is a great biological unity in humanity. Paul stated this in his own way by saying that all men are of the same blood. And what we know, because the mutations are written on our genomes, is that modern humanity started as a particular variety of Black people living in south central Africa. We know this because the mutations in our genomes can be followed backwards and the point of origin is among these Black people in Africa. So to speak, “we can run the film backward.” We are all descended from them with a little Neanderthal and Denisovan and maybe other now extinct races mixed in. That, for some people, is a harsh truth that they will not accept and they will happily choose to believe Herman Hoeh instead.
There is nothing wrong with hanging with your own kind – but without deriding others. We just need to humbly acknowledge the essential unity of mankind as Paul did. Racism is the redoubt of the weak-minded. Think about some of the racists that you know. I have always believed that marriage is such a dicey proposition that people do best if they marry within their own kith. You need every break you can get to make marriage work. And good marriage is a grace from God.
Scout
Let me hasten to add, I do not believe that Blacks are developomentally behind other peoples since Blacks seem to be the earliest race on earth. People can be different from one another without being superior or inferior. Just like dogs.
I also do not believe that Noah was the progenitor of mankind. If he had been, we would see a remarkably different structure in the human genome. Noah gave rise to some Semitic clans, like the Bible says, in the Middle East after a local flood.
I also believe that the Bible is not about Celts, Anglo-Saxons or Native Americans, etc. It was about the only people that counted at that time - the Jews. I know this really does not sit will with many Americans. The only place you can find the US and BC in Prophecy is where prophecy speaks of the Great Babylon which is a Gentile thing.
9:25 "The only place you can find the US and BC in Prophecy is where prophecy speaks of the Great Babylon which is a Gentile thing."
I totally agree with your last statement. But that Noah thing really is fascinating. As a friend of mine would always say, "somebody black got on that boat" LOL. Despite what popular media likes to show concerning those eight individuals showing no people of color. Of course Armstrong had Ham being the evil son who married a black woman. Amstrongism "Noah was perfect in his generations, meaning he was racially pure. Okay, but what about his character.
Tank
What contained a "local flood"? Tops of mountains were not seen until about 78 days after the ark rested.
Anonymous 5:57 wrote, “All those “history” books involving origin of races leave me rather perplexed. They do not give any explanation, scientific or not, how the dark-skinned, black-eyed and hair people from Central Asia moved West into Europe and they turned into blue-eye blond.”
Another answer on the same topic. While historians may shy away from racial origins, geneticists do not. This is an excerpt from the book “Who We are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past”, by David Reich, Harvard School of Medicine. He makes this statement on page 96 after carefully establishing that Western Europeans (West Eurasians) are a composite of three different peoples (Hoeh would call them different races): hunter-gatherers, farmers and Ancient North Eurasians:
“The fusion of these highly different populations into today's West Eurasians is vividly evident in what might be considered the classic northern European look: blue eyes, light skin, and blond hair. Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that western European hunter- gatherers around eight thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today. The first farmers of Europe mostly had light skin but dark hair and brown eyes—thus light skin in Europe largely owes its origins to migrating farmers. The earliest known example of the classic European blond hair mutation is in an Ancient North Eurasian from the Lake Baikal region of eastern Siberia from seventeen thousand years ago. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutation in central and western Europe today likely derive from a massive igration into the region of people bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, an event that is related in the next chapter.”
Geneticists fairly well know when an ancient brown people "turned" white. We have seen this phenomenon in recent history. The Mexicans are a fusion of two peoples, Spanish and Indian. Now they constitute a new race. The same thing happened with the ancestors of White Europeans. They are a composite of three peoples. This is also the reason why Armstrongism is never going to be friendly to science.
Scout
Tank 10:17
If you are interested in the topic of Noah as progenitor, have a look at:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-noachian-bottleneck-and-refutation.html
The predicate is that the relationship between various haplogroups is defined in our genomes through the logical connection between mutations. That mutational logic does not reflect the so-called Table of Nations in Genesis 10. The term "Table of Nations" is a translators gloss. The Hebrew text says the genealogy refers to the "clans of the sons of Noah."
Scout
Anonymous 1:27 wrote, "What contained a "local flood"?
If you are interested in this topic, have a look at:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2023/12/noah-and-presumed-universal-flood.html
Scout
Scout @ 3:24:24 PM PST
‘This is also the reason why Armstrongism is never going to be friendly to science’ …………well put Scout.
I might add this is why I believe there is an underlying anti semitism within Armstrongism with its adherence to BI. ‘Other’ races and the Jews are a problem for them. With genetics real curb balls have been thrown at them. Fun times indeed.
Had commented in that 2023/12 thread.......still have the question. A "firmament" didn't contain a flood but contributed to it......rained!
Scout 3:36,
thanks for the link & info, I'll check it out. I was also interested in a topic surrounding the flood or after. It's the giants. I read somewhere I think Numbers 13:32–33. Trying to figure out if they survived the flood or not or is its a contradiction.
Anon 6:37:15 AM PST
Giants…did they survive the flood?
They sure did. Look at Barron Trump and any NBA match lol.
My goodness that young man is tall. LOL
Anonymous 8:15 wrote, “Had commented in that 2023/12 thread.......still have the question. A "firmament" didn't contain a flood but contributed to it......rained!”
I am not sure what the question is but I will take a stab at it. In ancient Semitic cosmology, the Cosmos looked a lot different than it does to us. They believed in a Three Story Universe: Heaven, Earth and the Underworld. We have the modern science of astronomy and they, back then, did not. They envisioned the sky as a ceiling of solid material. Apparently, they thought it was transparent because they believed that the ceiling (firmament) held back water and the water is what made the sky blue. They also believed that the ceiling was not that far away, hence, the attempt to reach it by building a tower. And above the vault of heaven was where the Throne of God was located.
So, to these ancient people, the Universe was shaped like a big plate with a bowl inverted over the top of it. The plate was the Middle Story or the earth. They could see the circle of the horizon. The bowl was the Top Story which is heaven and beneath the plate was the Bottom Story or the underworld. This is what was is described in the Book of Genesis.
In Source Criticism, the description in Genesis 1 is attributed to the Priesthood. I think they were the educated class in ancient Israel. So, it is not surprising that their view of Genesis was pretty much what was found broadly in the Middle East. Greco-Roman society inherited this view from the Middle East.
It is important to recognize that the Bible spoke to people in terms that they recognized. You could not write a treatise on modern astrophysics and expect the readers at that time to understand it. For that matter, we probably could not now understand a treatise on the Cosmos written a couple of thousand years in the future. What was to the Ancients state-of-the-art cosmology is to us now allegory. This ancient view has staying power throughout this transition from cosmology to allegory because the spiritual principles carry forward and have not changed. I have no doubt that when the Priesthood wrote or redacted this physical description of the Cosmos, they actually believed their view was realistic and accurate.
Scout
I am pretty sure that if one would present a treatise on modern astrophyics to a Babylonian Asttronomer that he would get the gist...as like someone would explain the cosmos to us as they understand it a thousand years in the future we would understand....it would just propel things faster...much faster.....
nck
NCK 5:22
I should have qualified my statement by saying that the ancient Babylonian astronomer could not understand quantum mechanics because he did not have the prepartion to understand it. There might also be the impediment of belief. He believed that the Cosmos orginated in a state of Primordial Chaos. Nowadays we mostly Big Bangers and feel that the Cosmos had some organization from the beginning. Even the Singularity obeyed certain rules. The Primordial Chaos idea might not fly with us. Not because we could not understand it but because we operate with a different theory.
Scout
Albert Einstein and Oppenheimer were inspired by Bhagavad Gita that precedes the Bible....
It's all there...... (like Lord Rama in Genesis)
Nck
Post a Comment