Scholars have long been puzzled by how the Tribes of Israel are divided in Deuteronomy 27:11-13, placing half on the mountain of Blessing and half on the mountain of Cursing. It doesn't correspond to the split between Rehoboam and Jeroboam, it doesn't line up to their mothers exactly either, it seems random.
As someone who's spent a lot of time comparing in my mind the tribal allotments of Joshua to the how Israel was geopoliticaly in the Time of Christ based largely on how Herod's domain was divided upon his death. I've noticed an interesting correlation here.
Those on Mount Gerizim seem to equate to what was directly under Rome via Pilate's governance, which had at Herod's death been inherited by Archleous mentioned at the end of Matthew 2. While those on Ebal equate to what was inherited by other sons of Herod, or perhaps even specifically by Antipas.
First listed on Ebal are Gad and Reuben, the southernmost of the Trans-Jordan tribes thus making them equate pretty well to Perea. Galilee as it was in NT times wasn't just Zebulun and Naphtali but also included much of Assher and perhaps even some of Dan. Dan could also equate well to what Philip inherited. But I still think it could also be Antipas, usually Antipas isn't thought to have extended that far north, but when Antipas and Aretas went to war, Damascus got tangled up in that. Or it could be notable that Dan's original allotment being adjacent to the Philistines could be in what Herod's sister Salome inherited.
On Gerizim were Judah, Levi and Benjamin, the three core Tribes of the Kingdom of Judah which became Judea. Simeon's original allotment equates well to NT era Idumea. And the house of Joseph became Samaria. What Archelus inherited is defined as Judea, Samaria and Idumea.
The only possible issue is Isschcar, which I'll get into later.
But first, if this is true, what is the theological significance of it?
Luke 23:6-7 shows Jesus as a Galilean was of Herod Antipas jurisdiction. Jesus grew up in Galilee and did most of his ministry there, but He also said "no Prophet is accepted in his own country". It was in Judea that his Birth, Death, Resurrection and Ascension happened, and where Pentecost happened. Perea being under Antipas control is why he had the authority to arrest John The Baptist.
During the time of of the 66-73 AD war, the same lands Antipas ruled and beyond were under Herod Agrippa II's control.
Issachar is often considered also part of NT era Galilee. Mainly because the traditional site of Nazareth is adjacent to what is traditionally identified as Japhia/Jafia, a city of Issachar. But I have reasons to think one or both of those traditional identifications is wrong.
Both Isaiah 9:1 and the New Testament passages that quote it (Matthew 4:13-15) only mention Zebulon and Naphtali. I think Isaiah's original context was possibly only intending to define Naphtali as Galilee, (other OT references to Galilee mention just Naphtali not Zebulon). In New Testament times Galilee as Antipas ruled it definitely extended further west then just Naphtali, possibly because of how Greco-Roman Jews interpreted Isaiah 9. Meanwhile Matthew 4 could be viewed as saying Jesus going from Nazareth to Capernaum was going from Zebulun to Naphtali.
Zebulun and Issachar are often paired together, like in Deuteronomy 33 and arguably also Genesis 49. And there are other passages that seem to mention only one and not the other. But also in general the different views on how to map out the allotments of the tribes are often most confusing when it comes to these two tribes, both in how they relate to each other and in how they relate to Asher and parts of western Manasseh. The most popular map gives neither any coast land while Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 both seem to predict at least Zebulon will be by the sea. (Note, in Deuteronomy 33 the "West" linked to Naphtali is the Hebrew word for Sea and so probably refers to the Sea of Galiee.)
The city of Samaria itself is possibly a reason why I think perhaps Issachar should be considered part of Samaria not Galilee.
First you should know that in the Hebrew text the spelling of Samaria often has an N at the end. Meaning it's spelling is basically the same as Shimron, a son of Issachar in Genesis 46:13 who had a clan in Numbers 26:24. And Joshua 12:20 mentions a Shimron near Meggido.
As the name of a city Samaria didn't exist before Omri founded it (there is a Prophetic reference in the time of Jeroboam). But he's said to have named it after who he bought the hill from. At first glance it seems like it's saying an individual, but it could mean the clan.
Omri had just overthrown a Dynasty who came from Issachar, Baasha's, and was fighting a civil war with Tibni who could have been of the same tribe for all we know. Choosing a capital at the border of Issachar and Manasseh-Joseph could have been a unifying gesture. Like David's move in choosing Jerusalem for his capital, just on Benjamin's side of the Benjamin-Judah border.
Even if this moves south what's typically viewed as Issachar it's still moving Samaria north of it's traditional location, since it's traditionally south of Tirzah and this would make it north since Tirzah was firmly Manasseh. But perhaps it also makes more sense of some things to place Samaria closer to Jezreel (which was in Issachar), Ahab's capital, then it is usually placed.
Showing posts with label The Cross. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Cross. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Using The Cross as a symbol of our Faith
There are lots of Christians out there today who want to reject it. Not all advocating for some other symbol in it's place, many arguing that using Symbols is itself inherently Occult and so not something Christians should do.
The thing about Occult Symbolism is, it involves a belief the symbol itself has Magical power. I have said firmly that things like the mere sight of a Cross repelling Vampires is an inherently pagan philosophy, so I find it funny when I see Christians complain about the Cross losing it's power in much modern Vampire fiction.
And the thing with Secret Societies who may not always take the supernatural seriously. Is that the symbols are meant to conceal not reveal, only those in the know should recognize it. What The Cross means to a Christian is not hidden, we seek to make it common knowledge.
A Christian wearing a Cross is just a way to communicate that we're Christians as soon as we're seen.
Symbolism can be used in a purely text format. And Paul does use The Cross as a symbol of the Gospel in passages like 1 Corinthians 1:17-18.
And Philippians 2:8 and 3:18-19.
And all that is why I favor The Cross over the other two symbols that are sufficiently Ancient, The Chi-Rho Sign and the Ichys Fish. Because Paul himself used it as a symbol of the Gospel he preached repeatedly.
But what about the question of if we depict The Cross accurately? Regardless of if The Cross Jesus was on actually looked like the common symbol we use (The argument that it looked more like an X is compelling), that that shape resembles the original Paleo-Hebrew design of the Tav, the last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, I consider a valid Judeo-Christian basis for it. In a Paleo-Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 three Tavs appear, the middle one being the untranslated Aleth-Tav in the exact middle of the verse.
Then there is the theory that the Israelites encampment in The Wilderness would have had a similar shape.
I sometimes hear from Torah Observant Christians, "Why would I use a symbol of suffering and death?" That happens to resemble how Muslims and sometimes Mormons criticize The Gospel. And frankly that attitude is exactly what 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 is directed against. Now when we talk about The Cross we should never fail to stress that The Resurrection comes next.
Like many things certain groups don't like, there is a desire to blame it on Constantine. Constantine didn't use it however, he used the Chi-Rho sign, that's what he saw in his supposed vision. As far as state sponsored Christianity goes the first King to put Crosses on their coins was King Ezana of the Kingdom of Aksum in Africa, the same people who claim to have The Ark, makes you wonder doesn't it?
Carvings of Crosses go back before that however.
None of this is an argument you HAVE to go around using The Cross as a symbol, I am not a Legalist. This is simply saying symbolism isn't bad, and refuting those who would go around shaming Christians for using a Cross.
The thing about Occult Symbolism is, it involves a belief the symbol itself has Magical power. I have said firmly that things like the mere sight of a Cross repelling Vampires is an inherently pagan philosophy, so I find it funny when I see Christians complain about the Cross losing it's power in much modern Vampire fiction.
And the thing with Secret Societies who may not always take the supernatural seriously. Is that the symbols are meant to conceal not reveal, only those in the know should recognize it. What The Cross means to a Christian is not hidden, we seek to make it common knowledge.
A Christian wearing a Cross is just a way to communicate that we're Christians as soon as we're seen.
Symbolism can be used in a purely text format. And Paul does use The Cross as a symbol of the Gospel in passages like 1 Corinthians 1:17-18.
"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."And Galatians 5:11 and 6:12-14.
"As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh. But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."And Ephesians 2:16.
And Philippians 2:8 and 3:18-19.
"For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things."And Colossians 1:20 and 2:14.
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;"Hebrews 12:2 is arguably being literal not Symbolic.
And all that is why I favor The Cross over the other two symbols that are sufficiently Ancient, The Chi-Rho Sign and the Ichys Fish. Because Paul himself used it as a symbol of the Gospel he preached repeatedly.
But what about the question of if we depict The Cross accurately? Regardless of if The Cross Jesus was on actually looked like the common symbol we use (The argument that it looked more like an X is compelling), that that shape resembles the original Paleo-Hebrew design of the Tav, the last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, I consider a valid Judeo-Christian basis for it. In a Paleo-Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 three Tavs appear, the middle one being the untranslated Aleth-Tav in the exact middle of the verse.
Then there is the theory that the Israelites encampment in The Wilderness would have had a similar shape.
I sometimes hear from Torah Observant Christians, "Why would I use a symbol of suffering and death?" That happens to resemble how Muslims and sometimes Mormons criticize The Gospel. And frankly that attitude is exactly what 1 Corinthians 1:17-18 is directed against. Now when we talk about The Cross we should never fail to stress that The Resurrection comes next.
Like many things certain groups don't like, there is a desire to blame it on Constantine. Constantine didn't use it however, he used the Chi-Rho sign, that's what he saw in his supposed vision. As far as state sponsored Christianity goes the first King to put Crosses on their coins was King Ezana of the Kingdom of Aksum in Africa, the same people who claim to have The Ark, makes you wonder doesn't it?
Carvings of Crosses go back before that however.
None of this is an argument you HAVE to go around using The Cross as a symbol, I am not a Legalist. This is simply saying symbolism isn't bad, and refuting those who would go around shaming Christians for using a Cross.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Christians should oppose Capital Punishment
Don't simply throw all the Old Testament passages on Capital Punishment
at me, we are under the New Testament, and are no longer bound by The
Law. We are under the dispensation of Grace.
People will try to gather NT support for Capital Punishment by misusing a few passages.
Romans 13, is one of the most abused passages of The Bible, constantly twisted by Evil Governments to make Christians think they should have blind loyalty to Government. This is definitely a passage that should only be read in the KJV, and I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's sermons on it. But that's immaterial to it's relevance here.
"for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
First off this passage is about acknowledging Government, not what Christians should do if they ever wield civil authority. But bearing the sword for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and punishing evil doers, is not something limited to capital punishment. Any time a police officer or prison guard has to use a weapon that fits this verse. This really doesn't address Capital Punishment at all.
I've seen people cite Roman 1:32, about sins being "worthy of death", this is about the same thing as "the wages of sin is death".
People also cite Acts 25:11 where Paul says he is willing to be killed if he has done anything wrong. He is merely acknowledging the law of the land he lived under. And because he knew Roman law he knew he had not broken it. This was still before Roman law ever outlawed Christianity itself.
Christians should oppose Capital Punishment because of John 8
John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.". I really get annoyed at all the absurd conjectural arguments supposed "Christians" use to write off what the clear message of this verse is. That no one has the right kill another person for their Sin since we're all Sinners. I don't care about all your "they were trying to trap him" or "she was innocent since the guy wasn't there too", for the latter Jesus would have just said that.
Or some will argue Jesus really meant being guilty of the same specific Sin. That is ridiculous, not only does nothing Jesus said indicate such a qualifier, but it's absurd to think this massive crowd of people contained not a single person who never committed blatant adultery.
Now people will throw out Matthew 15 where they seem to think the point is Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the Torah's law about stoning rebellious children as evidence Jesus didn't intend to do away with such laws. The point here is He's condemning the Hypocrisy of men who obey man made traditions dogmatically and try to impose them on others, but not the actual Law. And for the example He chose a law they had a good loving reason for not enforcing.
On The Old Testament
Now, because Capital Punishment first shows up in Genesis 9, and this is before Abraham much less Moses, people say it's not eligible to be something done away with, only things unique to Israel are what the Church isn't held to.
The Problem is the number one thing fulfilled and thus done away with is the Sacrificial System. And that goes back at least to Genesis 4 (probably implied in Genesis 3). It's why Noah brought seven rather then just two of the clean animals on the Ark, so that when everything was over he could make offerings without committing genocide.
In fact, the origin of Capital Punishment in Genesis 9 is intricately linked to the concept of Blood Sacrifices.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Verse 4's command against digesting Blood is repeated in Acts 15 as something Christians should still obey. But that's there for the opposite reason as the other two commands here, that's condemning something Pagans did in their perverted blood sacrifice rituals.
Verse 5 is the first clear stating of the concept given in Leviticus as "the Blood is the life" and clearly defined in Hebrews as "without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins".
The way verse 6 follows that kind of gives me the impression that Capital Punishment is a type of sacrifice, the one form of Human Sacrifice that the Mosaic Law was okay with. That some passages say executed people were to have their bodies burned I think adds support to that.
And indeed, the true Sacrifice that all the others were merely rehearsals for was carried out in the form of Capital Punishment. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed Crucifixion as fulfilling the requirement of Deuteronomy 21:22-23
"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."
Crucifixion unlike Hanging with a rope (which people might at first assume being meant here) fits the Genesis 9 requirement that Blood be shed.
Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, where there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian custom and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected.
Jesus was made Sin for us. Even though he was completely without Sin, God poured out his Wrath upon him as if he where just as evil as Haman or Hitler.
In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree. Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab. They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone of Saul's sin against them. Likewise Jesus died to atone for the Sin of Adam, because he was the Son of Adam.
Christians who are pro-Capital Punishment like to point out how God explicitly prevented Cain from being killed for his act of murder, and seemingly likewise did the same for his descendant Lamech, in Genesis 4. And suggest that because of this lack of capital punishment the Earth became filled with violence and that's why The Flood was necessary, and so God instituted capital punishment in Genesis 9.
This argument amazes me, these are "conservative" Christians and yet they're effectively arguing that God himself made a mistake not allowing Cain to be executed.
The reason for The Flood is explained in Genesis 6 not 4, it's the Nephilim activity (whatever you think that means).
Biblical History is supposed to come full circle. So if anything the fact that God was clearly against men killing other men for their sins, even murder, before he allowed it in Genesis 9, shows God is against it in principle and that it was always meant to be done away with once The Law was fulfilled.
Ezekiel 40-48 contains no references to any Capital Punishment being carried out in the Messianic Kingdom.
People will try to gather NT support for Capital Punishment by misusing a few passages.
Romans 13, is one of the most abused passages of The Bible, constantly twisted by Evil Governments to make Christians think they should have blind loyalty to Government. This is definitely a passage that should only be read in the KJV, and I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's sermons on it. But that's immaterial to it's relevance here.
"for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
First off this passage is about acknowledging Government, not what Christians should do if they ever wield civil authority. But bearing the sword for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and punishing evil doers, is not something limited to capital punishment. Any time a police officer or prison guard has to use a weapon that fits this verse. This really doesn't address Capital Punishment at all.
I've seen people cite Roman 1:32, about sins being "worthy of death", this is about the same thing as "the wages of sin is death".
People also cite Acts 25:11 where Paul says he is willing to be killed if he has done anything wrong. He is merely acknowledging the law of the land he lived under. And because he knew Roman law he knew he had not broken it. This was still before Roman law ever outlawed Christianity itself.
Christians should oppose Capital Punishment because of John 8
John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.". I really get annoyed at all the absurd conjectural arguments supposed "Christians" use to write off what the clear message of this verse is. That no one has the right kill another person for their Sin since we're all Sinners. I don't care about all your "they were trying to trap him" or "she was innocent since the guy wasn't there too", for the latter Jesus would have just said that.
Or some will argue Jesus really meant being guilty of the same specific Sin. That is ridiculous, not only does nothing Jesus said indicate such a qualifier, but it's absurd to think this massive crowd of people contained not a single person who never committed blatant adultery.
Now people will throw out Matthew 15 where they seem to think the point is Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the Torah's law about stoning rebellious children as evidence Jesus didn't intend to do away with such laws. The point here is He's condemning the Hypocrisy of men who obey man made traditions dogmatically and try to impose them on others, but not the actual Law. And for the example He chose a law they had a good loving reason for not enforcing.
On The Old Testament
Now, because Capital Punishment first shows up in Genesis 9, and this is before Abraham much less Moses, people say it's not eligible to be something done away with, only things unique to Israel are what the Church isn't held to.
The Problem is the number one thing fulfilled and thus done away with is the Sacrificial System. And that goes back at least to Genesis 4 (probably implied in Genesis 3). It's why Noah brought seven rather then just two of the clean animals on the Ark, so that when everything was over he could make offerings without committing genocide.
In fact, the origin of Capital Punishment in Genesis 9 is intricately linked to the concept of Blood Sacrifices.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Verse 4's command against digesting Blood is repeated in Acts 15 as something Christians should still obey. But that's there for the opposite reason as the other two commands here, that's condemning something Pagans did in their perverted blood sacrifice rituals.
Verse 5 is the first clear stating of the concept given in Leviticus as "the Blood is the life" and clearly defined in Hebrews as "without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins".
The way verse 6 follows that kind of gives me the impression that Capital Punishment is a type of sacrifice, the one form of Human Sacrifice that the Mosaic Law was okay with. That some passages say executed people were to have their bodies burned I think adds support to that.
And indeed, the true Sacrifice that all the others were merely rehearsals for was carried out in the form of Capital Punishment. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed Crucifixion as fulfilling the requirement of Deuteronomy 21:22-23
"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."
Crucifixion unlike Hanging with a rope (which people might at first assume being meant here) fits the Genesis 9 requirement that Blood be shed.
Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, where there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian custom and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected.
Jesus was made Sin for us. Even though he was completely without Sin, God poured out his Wrath upon him as if he where just as evil as Haman or Hitler.
In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree. Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab. They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone of Saul's sin against them. Likewise Jesus died to atone for the Sin of Adam, because he was the Son of Adam.
Christians who are pro-Capital Punishment like to point out how God explicitly prevented Cain from being killed for his act of murder, and seemingly likewise did the same for his descendant Lamech, in Genesis 4. And suggest that because of this lack of capital punishment the Earth became filled with violence and that's why The Flood was necessary, and so God instituted capital punishment in Genesis 9.
This argument amazes me, these are "conservative" Christians and yet they're effectively arguing that God himself made a mistake not allowing Cain to be executed.
The reason for The Flood is explained in Genesis 6 not 4, it's the Nephilim activity (whatever you think that means).
Biblical History is supposed to come full circle. So if anything the fact that God was clearly against men killing other men for their sins, even murder, before he allowed it in Genesis 9, shows God is against it in principle and that it was always meant to be done away with once The Law was fulfilled.
Ezekiel 40-48 contains no references to any Capital Punishment being carried out in the Messianic Kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)