The Twelve Tribes in Prophecy

[gcdonner]

When they shall say, "Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord".

As I mentioned above, "they" said it within a few days, at the Passover. It's already done.

That theory was debunked some time ago.

It was all "Fulfilled in Christ", which, btw, is the title of my yet unpublished book. If anyone is interested in reading it, I am happy to share it in Word format, free of charge, starting with the first chapter entitled the same as the book. Just send me a pm.

No thanks, I don't need more eisegesis.

Debunked by whom and with what biblical authority? You make a lot of statements of opinion but without scriptural support. Hear-say is not sufficient if I am going to engage you. You are the one using eisegesis while I am functioning from an exegesis perspective. Your arguments fall on deaf ears if there is no scripture to support them.

[silentreader]

As I mentioned above, "they" said it within a few days, at the Passover. It's already done.

That theory was debunked some time ago.

It was all "Fulfilled in Christ", which, btw, is the title of my yet unpublished book. If anyone is interested in reading it, I am happy to share it in Word format, free of charge, starting with the first chapter entitled the same as the book. Just send me a pm.

No thanks, I don't need more eisegesis.

Debunked by whom and with what biblical authority? You make a lot of statements of opinion but without scriptural support. Hear-say is not sufficient if I am going to engage you. You are the one using eisegesis while I am functioning from an exegesis perspective. Your arguments fall on deaf ears if there is no scripture to support them.

Are you sure you meant the Passover? Didn't you want it to be at the Triumphal Entry in the other thread?
Jesus seems to have made this statement several times. In the Luke account He was still possibly two and a half days journey from Jerusalem when He said, "You will not see me again until you say...." This becomes problematic if you try to make the entire statement as referring to being by the Triumphal Entry or the following Passover because a lot of people saw Him as He ministered on His way to Jerusalem. It may have been part of their ritual, but by their actions they denied the truth while He was still on this earth.

Luke 13:31-35

31 Just at that time some Pharisees approached, saying to Him, “Leave and go from here, for Herod wants to kill You.” 32 And He said to them, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and on the third day I finish.’ 33 Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day, for it is not possible that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem. 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you did not want it! 35 Behold, your house is left to you desolate, and I say to you, you will not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

[silentreader]

But the question remains, What Israel? They are not a theocracy as God ordained them to be and they are not in covenant relationship with him anymore so what is your point? They are no better or worse than any other nation on the face of the earth.
There are no land promises in the NT at all. Are you aware that the word often translated as "forever" in the OT is literally translated as "to the age"?
If they are no longer in a covenant relationship with YHWH, then what special claim do they have to "the land", which was always tied up with obedience to the Covenant?

What Israel?
The Israel that needs to look on Him whom they have pierced and recognize and acknowledge that He was/is the Lamb of God as John the Baptist introduced Him and repent of their unbelief so they can again become spiritual children of Abraham.

What is your scriptural source for these assertations?

What is wrong with what I said? Do you not agree that they need to repent and come to Christ in order to become part of the redeemed?

[gcdonner]

What Israel?
The Israel that needs to look on Him whom they have pierced and recognize and acknowledge that He was/is the Lamb of God as John the Baptist introduced Him and repent of their unbelief so they can again become spiritual children of Abraham.

What is your scriptural source for these assertations?

What is wrong with what I said? Do you not agree that they need to repent and come to Christ in order to become part of the redeemed?

I agree that everyone needs to come to repentance, but when you couch it in prophetic language (I assume) without reference, then I have to try and read between your lines to know what you are inferring. Was it to Rev 1:7? If so, then it would obviously have to have taken place in the first century, else those who pierced him would not still be living. See what I mean?
No one living today saw him pierced and you have no precedence for forcing a modern interpretation onto the phrase. If "they" is generic in referring to those who saw him pierced, then we could also include all the tribes of the earth, not just Jews, since Jesus was crucified "from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8).
Language does matter and audience relevance does matter, since God took all of it into consideration when he authored scripture to be read by human beings.
"The Bible was NOT written to us, but For us."
If you don't believe that, try following the directions Paul gave specifically to Timothy, or Titus or Philemon or any of the other recipients of his letters.

[silentreader]

What is your scriptural source for these assertations?

What is wrong with what I said? Do you not agree that they need to repent and come to Christ in order to become part of the redeemed?

I agree that everyone needs to come to repentance, but when you couch it in prophetic language (I assume) without reference, then I have to try and read between your lines to know what you are inferring. Was it to Rev 1:7? If so, then it would obviously have to have taken place in the first century, else those who pierced him would not still be living. See what I mean?
No one living today saw him pierced and you have no precedence for forcing a modern interpretation onto the phrase. If "they" is generic in referring to those who saw him pierced, then we could also include all the tribes of the earth, not just Jews, since Jesus was crucified "from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8).
Language does matter and audience relevance does matter, since God took all of it into consideration when he authored scripture to be read by human beings.
"The Bible was NOT written to us, but For us."
If you don't believe that, try following the directions Paul gave specifically to Timothy, or Titus or Philemon or any of the other recipients of his letters.

The language was not intended to be prophetic. By Israel I was meaning that secular state that is today named Israel and identifies as Jewish. By "Him whom they have pierced" I was referring to those same whose ancestors were culpable in the rejection and death of their Messiah. The remainder says that He whom the fathers rejected is still the only way to redemption, and that thy must see that and repent in order to be 'saved'.
Although I suppose that is prophetic in a way.

[JohnHurt]

What would you say to the many Christians who champion the right of Israel to to land today, even though they have not turned to Christ, and He isn't sitting on the throne of David?

I think the restoration of the nation of Israel is a good thing. I don't see it as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that were already fulfilled after the Babylonian captivity. I don't see New Testament prophecies that mention it. But especially after the Holocaust, creating a nation for Jews in the Holy Land is a very good thing indeed.

But the slogan "a land without a people for a people without a land" was wrong-headed. There were already people there. They need to be taken into account too. The failure to do that has led to a lot of bad consequences. Sometimes Christians can speak as though these people don't matter at all, this land was promised to Israel, and it doesn't matter what happens to the Palestinians. The Palestinians and most Muslims disagree. That's not surprising.

I heard Meir Kahane speak in person. It was alarming. He said many of the same things Hitler said about the Jews, but it was a Jew speaking about Palestinians. Most Jews are not extremists like that. But some are.

I met a Palestinian in 1982. His family had a 100 acre farm outside of Bethlehem where they raised grapes. The farm had been in their family for generations. One morning at daybreak, a loudspeaker announced that they should come out of their house with their hands up, as they were surrounded by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). The IDF removed their possession from their home, then dynamited the 4 corners and bulldozed it. The next year, a "kibbutz" or Israeli settlement, surrounded by barbed wire, was in the same place where their home used to be, proving that they would never get their land back. They had some money, so instead of becoming refugees or moving to Gaza, they came to America to start over.

Your statement "But especially after the Holocaust, creating a nation for Jews in the Holy Land is a very good thing indeed." - is, like you said "wrong headed", because "there were already people there." Many Palestinians ask why they should have to pay for the Holocaust. That is, since the Germans were responsible for the Holocaust, then why don't they take land from the Germans, and not the Palestinians? What did Palestine ever do to the Jews to deserve being put into camps and having their land stolen?

I don't see a lot of difference between Meir Kahane and Joseph Goebbels. A "master race" is just a different word for the "chosen people". Putting people in camps that oppose you, and killing others based on their race - just a lot of similarities.

Whoever wins the war is the "good guy". If Guy Fawkes had blown up Parliament and restored Catholicism to England, he would not be burned in effigy on Nov 5th today. If George Washington had lost the revolution, he would be burned in effigy every July 4th in a British America. If Adolph Hitler had conquered the world, then he would have become the greatest man that ever lived. That is how this crazy world determines who is good and who is evil.

Likewise, the Zionists are "respectable", only because they have won the wars and established the "State of Israel". Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel, yet he had a long history of killing all of the men, women and children in the Palestinian camps with a machine gun. Sharon was a criminal in every sense of the word.

We make a great mistake to see fulfillment of Biblical promises in man-made political solutions.

Christ said " I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6.
John said "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:" 1 John 2:23.

The Jews in Palestine cannot come to God without Christ. They are not "God's Chosen People" because they don't have the same God that we do.

The New Covenant of Hebrews 8:8 and Jeremiah 31:31 was made by YHVH with Israel, yet the Jews are not under this covenant. The Jews are not Israel, at least in the eyes of God. So there is no reason for any Christian to support Judaism.

Christianity is not an "off-shoot" of Judaism. Modern Judaism is a direct descendant of the Pharisee religion, and is based on the Talmud, and not the Bible. The Talmud, or "tradition of the elders" was cursed by Christ in Mark 7:3.

I appreciate your posts, and read many of them.

John Hurt

[gcdonner]

The language was not intended to be prophetic. By Israel I was meaning that secular state that is today named Israel and identifies as Jewish. By "Him whom they have pierced" I was referring to those same whose ancestors were culpable in the rejection and death of their Messiah. The remainder says that He whom the fathers rejected is still the only way to redemption, and that thy must see that and repent in order to be 'saved'.
Although I suppose that is prophetic in a way.

We agree that, as Jesus himself said, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life, NO man cometh unto the Father but by me."
It doesn't matter what your physical heritage, it matters to Whom and through Whom you come. As it has been well said, "the ground at the foot of the cross is level". No one has more right to it than anyone else. We are all "Abraham's seed" if we are in Christ. That has been my point all along.