Did the event of 1948 Israel fulfill any Bible prophecy?

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

parousia70 said:
So when John said:
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show his servants things which MUST SHORTLY TAKE PLACE.... FOR THE TIME IS NEAR"

He actually meant:
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show his servants things which WON'T TAKE PLACE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.... FOR THE TIME IS FAR OFF"

Do I have that correct?

John was speaking in "opposites"?

John gave two time references.

Near: Chapter 1-3, Spiritual condition of the churches.
Far: Chapter 4-22, Day of the Lord.

claninja · Jun 4, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
The birthright blessing was never realized in the biblical time period, therefore it must appear later. See British Israelism.

Where does scripture define Joseph's birthright? I keep asking for you to provide scripture so I can understand, but each time you respond, you don't provide scripture.

Is this the scripture that you are interpreting to mean health and wealth for british and western nations?

Genesis 49:22-25 Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a spring, whose branches scale the wall. The archers attacked him with bitterness, and aimed in hostility.Yet he steadied his bow, and his strong arms were tempered by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, in the name of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, by the God of your father who helps you, and by the Almighty who blesses you, with blessings of the heavens above, with blessings of the depths below, with blessings of the breasts and womb.

claninja · Jun 4, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
The time setting is "the Day of the Lord", which hasn't happened yet.

John was in the spirit on the day of the Lord when he was given the revelation

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet

OldWiseGuy said:
It seems that John wrote of the "things which are" in the first 3 chapters. The things which occur "hereafter" begin with chapter 4 and continue to the end of the book.

John was given in vision, in chapter 12, that pertains to Christ's ascension. This would have been past.

Revelation 12:5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rulea all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

iamlamad · Jun 4, 2019

claninja said:
John was in the spirit on the day of the Lord when he was given the revlation

Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet

John was given in vision, in chapter 12, that pertains to Christ's ascension. This would have been past.

Revelation 12:5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rulea all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,

Claninja is correct there: the first five verses of chapter 12 are written as a parenthesis - with no bearing on John's chronology. Chapter 12 in general is a midpoint chapter.. But the first five verses are about Christ's birth and how the Dragon tried to kill Him as a young child.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

iamlamad said:
Claninja is correct there: the first five verses of chapter 12 are written as a parenthesis - with no bearing on John's chronology. Chapter 12 in general is a midpoint chapter.. But the first five verses are about Christ's birth and how the Dragon tried to kill Him as a young child.

True. Known history isn't revelation.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

claninja said:
Where does scripture define Joseph's birthright? I keep asking for you to provide scripture so I can understand, but each time you respond, you don't provide scripture.

Is this the scripture that you are interpreting to mean health and wealth for british and western nations?

Genesis 49:22-25 Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a spring, whose branches scale the wall. The archers attacked him with bitterness, and aimed in hostility.Yet he steadied his bow, and his strong arms were tempered by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, in the name of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, by the God of your father who helps you, and by the Almighty who blesses you, with blessings of the heavens above, with blessings of the depths below, with blessings of the breasts and womb.

Verse 26 is very important. Note that it suggests a future monarchy.

26: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."

Genesis 48 is also very important, as the birthright blessing was to be divided between the sons of Joseph.

Here are all the narratives where the term "birthright" appears. It always pertains to a single birthright promise; the Abrahamic material promise of race.
Note too that is separate from all other covenants, laws, and prophecies, and continues unaffected by any historical event that befalls Israel or any judgment of God.

Genesis 25:31
And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.

Genesis 25:32
And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

Genesis 25:33
And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.

Genesis 25:34
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

Genesis 27:36
And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

Genesis 43:33
And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another.

1 Chronicles 5:1
Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

1 Chronicles 5:2
For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was (remained with) Joseph's (parenthesis mine).

This is very important as it indicates that the advent of Jesus did not affect the birthright promise to be enjoyed by the sons of Joseph.

Hebrews 12:16
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

mkgal1 · Jun 4, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
The birthright blessing was never realized in the biblical time period, therefore it must appear later. See British Israelism.

From what I can find about British Israelism, it's considered a heresy. Here is what the Lutheran church cites:

Evangelical Lutheran Synod said:
British Israelism

Q: There seems to be very little written on the subject of British Israelism. Would you please explain what this is, and how this teaching affects Christianity today?”

A: In order to understand what is meant by “British Israelism,” or “Anglo-Israelism,” one must recognize what is called the teaching of “millennialism.” Millennialism—a false teaching that is very popular among fundamentalist preachers, such a Falwell, Graham, Roberts, McIntire, etc.—is the view that Jesus Christ will establish some kind of a glorious kingdom here on this earth at the time of his Second Coming. Proponents of millennialism take the number 1,000 in Rev. 20:2-4 very literalistically, and claim that this “earthly kingdom” of Christ and his true followers will last exactly for a period of 1,000 years, after which will come the final judgment. Millenialists overlook the fact that the Apostle John’s terminology in his book describing the Revelation of Jesus Christ is obviously figurative, since he is recording what was seen in his vision (Rev. 9:17). As a result, we Lutherans believe the 1,000 years mentioned in Rev. 20 are a figurative expression for the period of time in which we are now living—the time form the first coming of Christ to the Last Day.
It also needs to be said that Scripture repeatedly rules out any kind of “heaven on earth” thoughts with regard to Christ’s Second Coming on the day of judgment. Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Peter in his second epistle informs us that the moment Christ returns this present world will be completely destroyed, leaving no room for any millenialistic ideas of a peaceful, utopian reign on this present earth. Look up II Peter 3:10-13. This is why our Augsburg Confession also states: “Rejected, too, are certain Jewish opinions which are even now making an appearance and which teach that, before the resurrection of the dead, saints and godly men will possess a worldly kingdom and annihilate all the godless. (Art. VII, par. 5).

British Israelism is simply millennialism with a slightly different twist to it. Adherents of this movement believe that the Anglo-Saxons make up two of the lost tribes of Israel, one in England, the other in the United States. They maintain that when the northern kingdom of Israel was taken captive by the Assyrians, these tribes escaped and emigrated to the British Isles. They feel that the Anglo-Saxons and not the ostensible Jews, were the chosen people of God; that by destiny they have been selected to rule the world; that this will be accomplished by the merger of Britain and America into one common citizenship.

Herbert W. Armstrong (who just recently died) and his Worldwide Church of God has been one of the leading and visible proponents of British Israelism. But this non-Trinitarian cult is not the only pusher of this pernicious doctrine; even many Trinitarian groups have incorporated this kind of millennialism into their theological system. It is hard to expose the British Israel World Federation, since they have no membership as such, visibly speaking. It is the invisible, though, that makes this movement so dangerous to our Christian faith, as well as to our national independence.

There is, of course, no more historical proof for the British Israel people’s claim (to be the lost tribes of Israel) than for the Mormon claim that the captives of the northern kingdom of Israel immigrated to American and their descendants are now American Indians. These are myths which have been made popular in our day, and, sad to say, a number of people have itching ears (II Tim. 4:3-4) and are willing to listen to fables rather than the truth of God’s Word. God gave Jesus Christ as man’s substitute in payment for sin in order that those who believe may have everlasting life. We should not look to some theoretical British-U.S. empire as the “savior” which ushers in a millennial reign—a cheap substitute for the real life God offers. ~ https://els.org/resources/answers/british-israelism/

mkgal1 · Jun 4, 2019

I also found this on the topic:

linked article said:
The Legend Of British-Israel

C.T. Dimont, D.D.
Principal of Salisbury Theological College Chancellor and Canon of Salisbury Cathedral

British-Israel
The movement bearing this name is so called because it maintains the theory that the British people are the descendants of the Ten Northern Tribes of Israel, commonly referred to as the Lost Ten Tribes. This theory has of late years increased the number of its adherents. At first sight it might be considered a waste of time to deal with the strange arguments on which it is based. But it is becoming plain that where they are accepted certain quite definite results follow. The British-Israelite believes that the Old Testament promises that Israel - that is, Britain - is to possess the earth. He therefore, as I shall show later by quotations from British Israel publications, opposes the League of Nations and other peace movements. What has been hitherto a comparatively harmless fad now threatens to become a minor heresy. It is therefore worth while to pay some attention to the allegations on which it rests.

History Of The Movement
The first hint of this movement occurred in 1649, when one John Sadler published a book called the Rights of the Kingdom, in which he traced resemblances between Hebrew and English law and custom. Britain as a name he derived from Berat Anak, the field of tin and lead, and he supposed that the Phoenician traders had originated this name. But

[p.4]

the modern movement started with Richard Brothers (1757-1824), a half-pay officer of the Navy. He published fifteen volumes on the subject. He claimed to be descended from David, and to be the nephew of the Almighty. It is not surprising that he ended in a lunatic asylum.

In 1840 John Wilson adopted the theory and devoted himself to propagating it. Others followed. Among them was C. Piazzi Smyth, the Astronomer-Royal for Scotland, who introduced a novelty by measuring the dimensions of the Great Pyramid, and finding in the measurements prophecies of the future prosperity of the English. This suggestion has since given rise to astonishing and copious speculations (cp. Enc. Rel. Eth., art. Anglo-Israelism).

The British-Israelites - to give them their present name, which seems to have replaced the former title of Anglo-Israelites-are now sufficiently numerous to put out a great amount of literature, run a weekly magazine, and even to contemplate the founding of a new theological college, on the ground that no existing college is faithful in its interpretation of Scripture.

For material we turn to British-Israel writings the official handbook called British-Israel Truth, edited by the late Archdeacon Hanan and H. Aldersmith, The Case for British Israel by A. N. Denny, The National Messenger (the weekly organ of the movement), and various other publications and manifestos.

[p.5]

The Ten Tribes Were Never Lost
First, then, we may state a fact which if we were so disposed might dispense us from further troubling about the matter. The British cannot be the descendants of the Lost Ten Tribes, because no such body of lost tribes exists or ever has existed. The assertion that all the Ten Northern Tribes were carried away to Assyria is contrary to Scripture and to the testimony of the monuments. Sargon, the King of Assyria, says that he carried away from Israel 27,290 captives. It is quite obvious that this was but a fragment of the whole population of the Northern Kingdom (cp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 9, which puts the men of military age in North Israel at 800,000). From the account in 2 Kings xvii. 6 and xviii.11 they appear to have been deported in two groups, one of which was placed in Western Mesopotamia, and the other in the far eastern parts of the Assyrian Empire. And this, as Dr. McCurdy says in his book, History, Prophecy and the Monuments (sec. 363), "is the whole story of the famous 'Dispersion of the Ten Tribes.' " The number stated by Sargon is not likely to have been put too low. Assyrian kings were not in the habit of minimising their exploits. Yet it comes to no more than the present population of Salisbury. A few years later more than seven times this number were carried away from Judah without destroying the southern and smaller kingdom.

Those deported were doubtless the most influential men and their families. The rest of the mass of the population remained in Israel. The religion of Jehovah continued there, blended no doubt to some

[p.6]

extent with the cults of the heathen settlers who came amongst the natives of the land. But the Samaritans retained the Pentateuch, and, in spite of the late hostility of the Jews, were not regarded as Gentiles.

Some time after the fall of Samaria Hezekiah held a great Passover at Jerusalem. According to 2 Chron. xxx. he sent invitations to Northern Israel as well as to Judah. A "multitude" from the North responded by attending. Five of the Northern Tribes are mentioned by name. It is quite clear from this passage that the greater part of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom had not been carried away to Assyria.

A century later another king of Judah, Josiah, when he repaired the Temple, received money for this purpose from "Manasseh and Ephraim, and all the remnant of Israel" (2 Chron. xxxiv. 9). This second passage strengthens the inference which we have drawn from the first, that there had been no wholesale deportation of the Ten Tribes.

This is now the generally accepted conclusion among Biblical scholars. It may be seen in such books as Israel in World History, by Dr. Blunt, Bishop of Bradford, or The Decline and Fall of the Hebrew Kingdoms in the Clarendon Bible.

In the New Testament it is assumed that the Twelve Tribes are still in existence and form one nation. St. Paul speaks of "our Twelve Tribes" (Acts xxvi. 7) as united in common worship. St. James addresses his letter to the Twelve Tribes of the Dispersion. Even if we give this address a figurative interpretation, it would have been singularly meaningless if Ten Tribes had been utterly lost. ~ https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_legend_dimont.html?fbclid=IwAR3tb6WeenJEQUMBgMpSfYhXuM9r9Wnl1VnNuzrh4_OOCGMoAZDU8Py4GiI

mkgal1 · Jun 4, 2019

The one article states, "The British-Israelites - to give them their present name, which seems to have replaced the former title of Anglo-Israelites-are now sufficiently numerous to put out a great amount of literature, run a weekly magazine, and even to contemplate the founding of a new theological college, on the ground that no existing college is faithful in its interpretation of Scripture."

.....that should be a giant red flag to people. That's what cults claim - that they are the ONLY holder of "truth and true faithfulness".

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

mkgal1 said:
I also found this on the topic:

Like most you have studied the rebuttals, but not the theory itself. These rebuttals contain some errors as well, most notably that all the tribes are represented by Britain.

Northern Europe, to include Scandinavia, along with other WASP countries, as well as 'white' Russia, are considered to be descendants of the tribes.

That Britain and America are the foremost mentioned nations is because they received the birthright wealth and power, which, as in the case of 'Joseph in Egypt' the other 'brother peoples' have benefitted greatly from.

I suggest reading "Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright" by J.H. Allen, copyright 1902 and 1917. Then you'll know what proponents believe as well as the opinion of critics.

Regardless of preconceived notions it's a great read.

jgr · Jun 4, 2019

mkgal1 said:
The one article states, "The British-Israelites - to give them their present name, which seems to have replaced the former title of Anglo-Israelites-are now sufficiently numerous to put out a great amount of literature, run a weekly magazine, and even to contemplate the founding of a new theological college, on the ground that no existing college is faithful in its interpretation of Scripture."

.....that should be a giant red flag to people. That's what cults claim - that they are the ONLY holder of "truth and true faithfulness".

Precisely, mkgal1. British Israelism, along with its sibling dispensationalism, represents another attempt to “racialize” the gospel and Scripture, utilizing RB (Replacement Biology) to attempt to replace Scripture's identifications of faith and obedience as the only covenant DNA that God has ever recognized.

Both must be unrelentingly repudiated as the heresies and heterodoxies that they represent.

claninja · Jun 4, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Verse 26 is very important. Note that it suggests a future monarchy.

26: "The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren."

The birthright is not the same as the blessing.

Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for some stew

Genesis 25:29-34 One day, while Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the field and was famished. He said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am famished.” (That is why he was also called Edom.) “First sell me your birthright,” Jacob replied. “Look,” said Esau, “I am about to die, so what good is a birthright to me?” “Swear to me first,” Jacob said. So Esau swore to Jacob and sold him the birthright. Then Jacob gave some bread and lentil stew to Esau; he ate and drank, and then got up and went away. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

Later, Jacob also tricked his father and got the first blessing.

Genesis 27:25-27 Serve me,” said Isaac, “and let me eat some of my son’s game, so that I may bless you.” Jacob brought it to him, and he ate; then he brought him wine, and he drank. Then his father Isaac said to him, “Please come near and kiss me, my son.” So he came near and kissed him. When Isaac smelled his clothing, he blessed him and said

***Notice Esau makes a distinction between the birthright and blessing. They are two different things, not the same

Genesis 27:36 So Esau declared, “Is he not rightly named Jacob?a For he has cheated me twice. He took my 1.) birthright, and now he has taken my 2.) blessing.

According to the law of Moses, the birthright is a double portion of inheritance from the father.

Deuteronomy 27:17 Instead, he must acknowledge the firstborn, the son of his unloved wife, by giving him a double portion of all that he has. For that son is the firstfruits of his father’s strength; the right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Thus I would argue, that the birthright that Rueben forfeited, and Joseph obtained, is the double portion of his father's inheritance.

1 chronicles 5:1 These were the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel. Though he was the firstborn, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel, because Reuben defiled his father’s bed. So he is not reckoned according to birthright.

The land of Israel was to be Jacob's and his offspring's possession

Genesis 28:13 And behold, the Lord stood above itc and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.

It is confirmed that Joseph received a double portion of the land of Israel: 1 tribe allotment for Ephraim and 1 tribe allotment for Mannasseh.

Joshua 16:4 The people of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, received their inheritance.

Joshua 17:17 Then Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, “You are a numerous people and have great power. You shall not have one allotment only.

OldWiseGuy said:
Genesis 25:31
And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright.

Genesis 25:32
And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?

Genesis 25:33
And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.

Genesis 25:34
Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

Genesis 27:36
And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. And he said, Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?

Genesis 43:33
And they sat before him, the firstborn according to his birthright, and the youngest according to his youth: and the men marvelled one at another.

1 Chronicles 5:1
Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

1 Chronicles 5:2
For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was (remained with) Joseph's (parenthesis mine).

These are all verses on the birthright, not the blessing. None of these verses define what the birthright actually is.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

jgr said:
Precisely, mkgal1. British Israelism, along with its sibling dispensationalism, represents another attempt to “racialize” the gospel and Scripture, utilizing RB (Replacement Biology) to attempt to replace Scripture's identifications of faith and obedience as the only covenant DNA that God has ever recognized.

Both must be unrelentingly repudiated as the heresies and heterodoxies that they represent.

Are you denying the primacy of Israel in prophecy?

jgr · Jun 4, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
Are you denying the primacy of Israel in prophecy?

The only primacy in Scripture, prophetic or otherwise, resides with the faithful and obedient, irrespective of DNA.

No others.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

claninja said:
The birthright is not the same as the blessing.

Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for some stew

Genesis 25:29-34 One day, while Jacob was cooking some stew, Esau came in from the field and was famished. He said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am famished.” (That is why he was also called Edom.) “First sell me your birthright,” Jacob replied. “Look,” said Esau, “I am about to die, so what good is a birthright to me?” “Swear to me first,” Jacob said. So Esau swore to Jacob and sold him the birthright. Then Jacob gave some bread and lentil stew to Esau; he ate and drank, and then got up and went away. Thus Esau despised his birthright.

Later, Jacob also tricked his father and got the first blessing.

Genesis 27:25-27 Serve me,” said Isaac, “and let me eat some of my son’s game, so that I may bless you.” Jacob brought it to him, and he ate; then he brought him wine, and he drank. Then his father Isaac said to him, “Please come near and kiss me, my son.” So he came near and kissed him. When Isaac smelled his clothing, he blessed him and said

***Notice Esau makes a distinction between the birthright and blessing. They are two different things, not the same

Genesis 27:36 So Esau declared, “Is he not rightly named Jacob?a For he has cheated me twice. He took my 1.) birthright, and now he has taken my 2.) blessing.

According to the law of Moses, the birthright is a double portion of inheritance from the father.

Deuteronomy 27:17 Instead, he must acknowledge the firstborn, the son of his unloved wife, by giving him a double portion of all that he has. For that son is the firstfruits of his father’s strength; the right of the firstborn belongs to him.

Thus I would argue, that the birthright that Rueben forfeited, and Joseph obtained, is the double portion of his father's inheritance.

1 chronicles 5:1 These were the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel. Though he was the firstborn, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel, because Reuben defiled his father’s bed. So he is not reckoned according to birthright.

The land of Israel was to be Jacob's and his offspring's possession

Genesis 28:13 And behold, the Lord stood above itc and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring.

It is confirmed that Joseph received a double portion of the land of Israel: 1 tribe allotment for Ephraim and 1 tribe allotment for Mannasseh.

Joshua 16:4 The people of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, received their inheritance.

Joshua 17:17 Then Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, “You are a numerous people and have great power. You shall not have one allotment only.

These are all verses on the birthright, not the blessing. None of these verses define what the birthright actually is.

And yet you concur with others that Christ received all promises, covenants, and blessings given by God to anyone who came before. Considering that it is certainly dumb luck that the birthright promise as well as the other prophetic blessings of Genesis 49 should so fit the latter day nations mentioned in the theory. If it looks, walks, and quacks, like a duck...

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

jgr said:
The only primacy in Scripture, prophetic or otherwise, resides with the faithful and obedient, irrespective of DNA.

No others.

So the disciples, Israelites, won't be ruling over the tribes of Israel in the kingdom as Jesus stated? And the sealed/elect aren't a special people, the 144,000 Israelites?

Matthew 19:28
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:30
That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

jgr · Jun 4, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
So the apostles, Israelites all, won't be ruling over the tribes of Israel in the kingdom? And the sealed/elect aren't a special people, the 144,000 Israelites?

The Church and the 144,000

Revelation 7:3-4 describe the 144,000 as “sealed.” That description is reserved in the NT for believers in Christ – His Body and Bride – the Church:

2 Corinthians 1:21-22
Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

Ephesians 1:13
In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 4:30
Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

The Revelation 7 passage is therefore conveying the insight that the OT Israelitish faithful saints of God are included under the NT banner of the Church. This is further confirmed by the meanings of the names of the listed tribes and substitutes (Levi and Joseph replacing Dan and Ephraim), describing spiritual qualities and experiences of those who comprise the Church:

Judah means “praise” (Gen 29:35)
Reuben means “see, a Son” (Gen 29:32)
Gad means “fortunate” (Gen 30:11)
Asher means “happy” (Gen 30:13)
Naphtali means “wrestling” (Gen 30:8)
Manasseh means “forgetting” (Gen 41:51)
Simeon means “heard” (Gen 29:33)
Levi means “attached” (Gen 29:34)
Issachar means “wages” (Gen 30:18)
Zebulon means “dwelling” (Gen 30:20)
Joseph means “He will add” (Gen 30:24)
Benjamin means “Son of the right hand” (Gen 35:17–18)

Similarly, the meanings of the names of Dan and Ephraim convey the reasons for their exclusion:

Dan means “a serpent by the way”(Genesis 49:17)

Satan in the guise of the serpent was responsible for the fall of mankind in Genesis 3, and for the bruising of Messiah's heel in Scripture's first recorded prophecy of Genesis 3:15. It was the same serpent Satan whose head Messiah bruised at Calvary.

Ephraim means “fruitful in the land of mine affliction” (Genesis 41:52)

The reference to “the land of mine affliction” in Ephraim's name's meaning is to that of Egypt, which in Scripture is both a literal and spiritual reality and symbol of bondage. But the Church, God's Chosen People, do not inhabit a land of spiritual affliction and bondage. Rather, they inhabit the Heavenly Jerusalem on Mount Sion (Hebrews 12:22,23), located in the Heavenly Country that God has prepared for the faithful (Hebrews 11:16).

Of additional significance is the order in which the names are presented, differing from the usual presentation by order of birth. In particular, Judah appears first, in recognition of its role as the tribal progenitor of Christ, the Lion of Judah.

While rebellion and apostasy were repetitive afflictions of the OT Israelites, there were still thousands who remained faithful (1 Kings 19:18). Their number is depicted as 12, a scriptural value representing faithfulness; multiplied by 12, representing the faithful from each of the twelve tribes; multiplied by 1,000 representing the indeterminate but large number (Psalms 50:10; Psalms 91:7; Revelation 5:11) of the total faithful in Israel; thus, 144,000.

Revelation 14 continues the descriptions further reflecting the qualities and experiences of the redeemed – the Church. Absent here is any mention of tribal, ethnic, or other distinctions, thus conveying the reality of the inclusivity and oneness of the NT Church which now embraces both Israelite and Gentile. Its number can also be depicted as 12, representing faithfulness; multipled by 12 representing the 12 faithful apostles, who with the prophets comprise the foundation of the NT church, with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20); multiplied by 1,000 representing the indeterminate but large number of the total faithful in the NT Church; thus, also 144,000.

The NT Church's inclusivity and oneness are declared in the following:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 2:14
For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall…

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.

The 144,00 are described as celibate, meaning that as the Bride of Christ, they are not defiled by adultery with the world (James 4:4). They sing a new song of deliverance and victory. They follow Christ wherever He goes. Their residence is heavenly Jerusalem on Mount Zion. (Hebrews 12:22)

No doubt about it…the Church is written all over the 144,000.

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

jgr said:
No doubt about it…the Church is written all over the 144,000.

And the 144,000 are Israelites. :oldthumbsup:

OldWiseGuy · Jun 4, 2019

jgr said:
Similarly, the meanings of the names of Dan and Ephraim convey the reasons for their exclusion:

Ephraim was not excluded, but is represented by Joseph. "Joseph" and "Ephraim" are often used interchangeably. However Manasseh always refers to Manasseh.

jgr · Jun 4, 2019

OldWiseGuy said:
And the 144,000 are Israelites.

They are the OT representatives of the faithful and obedient remnant of the Israelites.

Did the event of 1948 Israel fulfill any Bible prophecy?

Did event of Israel 1948 fulfill any Bible prophecy?

No

Yes

I don't know

Other

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Lamad

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads