Is Russia Mentioned in Ezekiel?

A careful and literal reading of Ezekiel 38 and 39 reveal that modern-day interpretations that allude to Russia are misleading, at best. Oddly, most of those interpretations seem to come from those who claim to be "literalists.

"As we read the headlines in the newspapers of today, and witness the conflict in the Middle East, it's not hard to imagine that this invasion prophesied over 2600 years ago, could be fulfilled in our lifetime."

The key word is "imagine." What Jennifer didn't say is that it is easy to imagine the scriptures to mean anything, but generally difficult to prove.

"4. Russian Theory: The Hebrew word 'rosh' in verse 3 is identified with Russia, 'Tubal' with Tiblisi or Tobolsk and 'Meshech' with Moscow, therefore Gog and Magog refers to Russia. This is one of the most commonly held views and is based on a different interpretation of the Hebrew word Rosh (used as a noun rather than adjective), similarities in the pronunciation of words, and the Greek translation of Rosh referring to a tribe of people found in what is now Russia."

Let's examine the word "rosh'" in the Old Testament. Strong's Concordance lists the word as:

{7218} ro'sh, roshe; from an unused root apparently meaning to shake; the head (as most easily shaken), whether literal or figurative (in many applications, of place, time, rank, itc.): — band, beginning, captain, chapiter, chief(-est place, man, things), company, end, X every (man), excellent, first, forefront, ((be-)) head, height, (on) high(-est part, (priest)), X lead, X poor, principal, ruler, sum, top.

From all appearances, the correct translation for rosh would be: the chief, head, ruler, or similar adjective. For direct usage, the Septuagint provides the following:

"And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Son of man, set thy face against Gog, and the land of Magog, Rhos, prince of Mesoch and Thobel, and prophesy against him, and say to him, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Rhos prince of Mesoch and Thobel:" (Eze 38:1-3 SEP)

In that translation the word "rosh" (Rhos) is used ambiguously the first time; but is used as, what appears to be, an adjective in the second part. Now compare with the King James Version:

"And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him, And say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:" (Eze 38:1-3 KJV)

Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the Hebrew word "ro'sh" means "the chief" in this instance; Gog would be the chief prince of Magog; and the King James Version is translated correctly.

The Strong number 7218 for the Hebrew word "rosh" is used over 500 times in the Old Testament, and the usage in the verses I examined was to define a "leader" (e.g., the chief baker;) as one's actual head (e.g., upon my head;) or as the highest point (as in, the top of a mountain.)

Rast said common interpretations of Meshech and Tubal are Moscow and Tiblisi (or Tobolsk) respectively. Let's examine an earlier Ezekiel reference to those two cities:

"And say unto Tyrus, O thou that art situate at the entry of the sea, which art a merchant of the people for many isles, Thus saith the Lord God; O Tyrus, thou hast said, I am of perfect beauty … Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all kind of riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs. Javan, Tubal, and Meshech, they were thy merchants: they traded the persons of men and vessels of brass in thy market. They of the house of Togarmah traded in thy fairs with horses and horsemen and mules. " (Eze 27:3, 12-14 KJV)

Tubal and Meshech are listed as two of the many merchants of Tyre. Guess who else was listed as a merchant?

"Judah, and the land of Israel, they were thy merchants: they traded in thy market wheat of Minnith, and Pannag, and honey, and oil, and balm." (Eze 27:17 KJV)

Other claimed scriptural references for a modern interpretation are these which use the word "north:"

"And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords: Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet: Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee ... Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord God; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it? And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:" (Eze 38:4-6, 14-15 KJV)

It should be noted that multiple invasions of Israel came from the north; for example, by Syria, Babylon, and Rome.

The land of Togarmah is mentioned in Ezekiel 27:14 as a merchant of Tyre for horses, horsemen and mules. Note also that in Ezekiel 38:4-6, the soldiers are not only riding horses; but are clothed with armour and carrying shields and swords. That sounds like an ancient army.

"And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes. " (Eze 38:16 KJV)

So, who is this mysterious Gog? Adam Clarke, in his commentary, stated it was Antiochus IV, king of Syria, who invaded Israel around 168 BC and defiled the temple. Antiochus was defeated during the Maccabean Revolt which, incidentally, marked the beginning of the feast of Hanukkah.

"And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord God: every man's sword shall be against his brother." (Eze 38:16-18 KJV)

Clark: "Meaning Judas Maccabeus, who defeated [Antiochus'] army under Lysias, making a horrible carnage."

"So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them pollute my holy name any more: and the heathen shall know that I am the Lord, the Holy One in Israel." (Eze 39:7 KJV)

Clarke: "This defeat of Gog is to be in Israel: and it was there according to this prophecy, that the immense army of Antiochus was so completely defeated. Ands I will not let them pollute my holy name any more— See on 1 Macc. 1:11, etc., how Antiochus had profaned the temple, insulted Jehovah and his worship, etc. God permitted that as a scourge to his disobedient people; but now the scourger shall be scourged, and he shall pollute the sanctuary no more."

Another commentary that mentions Antiochus is Matthew Henry Volume IV. Henry's comments for Ezekiel 38:5-6 include this statement:

I am of the opinion that Gog is not a modern figure, but an ancient king or ruler: most likely Antiochus IV.

>>>what did the two witnesses of revelation represent?<<<

Personally, I believe the two witnesses were James and Peter, of the Church in Jerusalem. I have not ironed out all the details, but I believe both were killed in Jerusalem where the Revelation stated the two witnesses were killed.

There is a myth that Peter was killed in Rome. I call it a myth because there is no evidence, of which I am aware, that he was ever in Rome. Everything in the scripture seems to point to Peter being a permanent part of the church of Jerusalem, with only limited travel outside the city.

There are a few other points to consider.

1) Their dead bodies lay in the street of Jerusalem for three and one-half days. Ponder that for a while. Name me one modern city that would allow that to happen. But what if there were already plenty of corpses of those murdered during a major civil war (the war that occurred in old Jerusalem in the late 0060's,) and of those who starved to death because of the resulting famine. Corpses in the city of Jerusalem both before and during the Roman Army siege were more than common.

2) Jesus said, in several ways, and on many occasions, that his Coming would occur in the generation of the disciples. Several times he bluntly stated that during his Coming he would send his angels to gather his elect (from the "four winds".) Therefore, when James and Peter were resurrected--when "they ascended up to heaven in a cloud," as written in Rev 11:12--they would have simply been a part of the first resurrection.

The fact that there is no written record of virtually anything, with the exception of Josephus and Tacitus, and the "fact" that there were no eyewitnesses remaining to this one event, can be explained in several ways:

1) Everyone that had received the "power" of the holy spirit--for example, on the day of Pentecost, or shortly thereafter--would have been resurrected. They are the ones who would have left us inspired writings of the event.

2) The eyewitnesses inside the city were most likely killed. The record provided by Josephus of the horrific civil war, famine, and slaughter by the Roman armies, leaves me to believe that, at the end, there were not a lot of eyewitnesses remaining, if any.

3) According to Josephus and Tacitus there were many unexplained, supernatural phenomena that occurred during the siege. The resurrection of Peter and James would have simply been one more, and maybe not so significant in comparison to the others. Recall this strange event recorded by both Josephus and Tacitus:

"There had happened omens and prodigies, things which that nation so addicted to superstition, but so averse to the Gods, hold it unlawful to expiate either by vows or victims. Hosts were seen to encounter in the air, refulgent arms appeared; and, by a blaze of lightning shooting suddenly from the clouds, all the Temple was illuminated. The great gates of the Temple were of themselves in an instant thrown open, and a voice more than human heard to declare, that “the Gods were going to depart.” [The Works of Tacitus, Vol 4, Book V, The Summary]

"Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities." [Josephus, Wars of the Jews, VI.5.3, translated by William Whiston, 1737]

“What I am about to relate would, I conceive, be deemed a mere fable, had it not been related by eye-witnesses, and attended by calamities commensurate with such portents. Before sunset were seen around the whole country chariots poised in the air, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and investing the cities.” (Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Volume II, Chapter VI, p.197, translated by Robert Traill, 1851)

Do you recall the old spiritual, "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot," where we sing, "A band of angels coming down after me?" Ironic, isn't it?

Philip

>>>Rev 20:9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.<<<

>>>Notice that they were on earth.<<<

And also notice that the "armies" covered the entire earth (the "breadth" of the earth.) That could only be a spiritual event, which I believe to be a war against the Church, worldwide; and I believe it is happening now!

Let's examine the verse from another context: the context of the Church, itself. Discard any notion that the Church has anything to do with any physical building. The Church is spiritual, and the true worshipers do not worship God in any particular place, but in spirit. Recall this discussion:

"Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:20-24 KJV)

The "war" is a spiritual war that Satan is waging against us; and everything points to the Church being spiritual. For example, this is New Jerusalem descending from heaven:

"And there came unto me one of the seven angels…, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God" (Rev 21:9-10 KJV)

John was "in the spirit." Therefore, that was a vision that John saw: not an actual physical event. Notice it never says the city descends to the earth, but only that it descends "out of heaven." And where to? We can assume it descends to the "great and high mountain."

But as elaborated in previous threads and posts, that would have to be one enormous mountain, if everything about the holy city is taken literally. The city, which is four-square, would cover about half the United States. Therefore, it is safe to assume the city is spiritual, if for no other reason than John was in the spirit when he saw it.

The heavenly Jerusalem is mentioned in a similar fashion in the old testament:

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (Isa 2:2-4 KJV)

The nations that "flow unto it" are expressed this way in the Revelation:

"And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it." (Rev 21:24 KJV)

It is important to note that two Jerusalem's are mentioned in the New Testament: the earthly and the heavenly:

"[The] Jerusalem which now is … is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal 4:25-26 KJV)

The notion that earthly Jerusalem is in bondage with her children helps explain the designation of earthly Jerusalem as spiritual "Egypt" in Rev 11:8.

Isaiah expressed it this way:

"Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the Lord: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God. Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory. For thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon her sides, and be dandled upon her knees. As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem." (Isa 66:8-13 KJV)

Therefore, the mother who brought forth Christ, and the one who comforts us, is "Jerusalem;" but not the earthly Jerusalem: rather it is the one in whom is also the glory of the Gentiles, which is the heavenly Jerusalem.

The people are taught by God in this manner:

"And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:1-2 KJV)

I will explain that in my response to your second comment.

>>>The New Jerusalem does not come down from heaven until after the second death.<<<

That appears to be when John saw it; but only if the Revelation is written chronologically. Recall this passage in the Hebrews:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant..." (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)

Now, we know the Church existed early during the Acts of the Apostles because they wrote of it by name. Note also that in the above passage Paul was writing in the present tense: that is,"ye are come" vs "ye will come".) Therefore, the holy city New Jerusalem--the Church--already existed in the days Paul wrote the Hebrews, which was about mid-first century.

But also recall the "river of water of life" referenced in Rev 22:1, above. That "river" began on the day of Pentecost. Jesus and John explained it this way:

"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:37-39 KJV)

The underlined part indicates Jesus was pointing to the day of Pentecost to be the day he would send the Comforter to those in Jerusalem; and the red portion indicates the Comforter (the Holy Ghost) would be the "rivers of living water." Zechariah prophesied they would flow out of Jerusalem, which they did:

"And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be." (Zec 14:8 KJV)

These are only a few of many verses and passages that point to the Church being spiritual, and existing since the day of Pentecost.

I am not implying that all of Rev 21 and 22 were fulfilled in the days of the apostles. For example, I do not believe the nations can be healed until Satan is defeated. But the Church, itself, has existed since the days of the Apostles' ministry.

Philip

The anti-Christ/ruler, that's easy...

Daniel 7

7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.

19 “Then I desired to know the truth about the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet, 20 and about the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn that came up and before which three of them fell, the horn that had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and that seemed greater than its companions.

Little horn = short guy

...teeth of iron and claws of bronze... See: Iron and bronze in Daniel 4:13-18

Three kings have been uprooted, Muammur Kaddafi was the third king uprooted, the other two, Hosni Mubarak and Saddam Hussein. And uprooted is the perfect word as these three had nearly 100 years of combined rule in the M.E. No small feat indeed.

Now who ascended before these three were uprooted?

Google: Amman seven mountains

Psalm 83 for the ten nations.

I'll look for my other files...

With all that context, it is easy to assume the great woman--the "mother" of Christ mentioned in Rev 12:1-2 & 5--is the Church, which is the heavenly Jerusalem located on mount Sion, which is "the mother of us all."

It is easy to assume? Be careful that your doctrine is not built on too many assumptions; you need to prove all things. When something doesn't fit there is a reason. If you can find the reason, that can make it fit, but more likely it just doesn’t fit.

We're dealing with the work of God and we can expect perfection. Let me illustrate. Romans 5 says that Adam is a figure of Christ and goes on the point out some of the similarities as well as some differences and the allegory begins. God uses the natural man to teach about the spiritual man thus the invisible things of him are clearly seen.

Along the way, more symbols are added to give depth to our understanding but the natural man is always first. (1 Corinthians 15:46) Some confusion comes because the symbols can be use more than one way. For instance Esau is the natural man and Jacob is the spiritual man but when Jacob becomes Israel, he become the natural man and Israel is the second born. When the church comes into the picture, then Israel is the firstborn. Perhaps this is why there are no firstborn sons in Christ's genealogy. But back to Adam.

Adam and Christ are the head of their respective races. Adam was not born physically and Christ is not born spiritually. Christ was created in Adam and Adam was created in Christ. An interesting metaphor God has wrought. You say that the church is spiritual. Does Christ have a spiritual mother? You make the same mistake the Catholic Church makes when it says Mary is the mother of God. You confuse natural things with spiritual things. Christ was not created in the church, it was the other way around. The church was created in Christ just as Eve was created in Adam. The church is the bride not the mother of Christ.

I Wrote:

You wrote: >>>It is easy to assume? Be careful that your doctrine is not built on too many assumptions; you need to prove all things. <<<

Every interpretation of prophecy is based on assumptions. Do you deny that? Or are you merely assuming my assumptions outnumber your assumptions and therefore I have exceeded the allowable limit? LOL!

>>>When something doesn't fit there is a reason. If you can find the reason, that can make it fit, but more likely it just doesn’t fit.<<<

Or, it does fit, and you are reading too much into what I wrote (or not enough.)

>>>We're dealing with the work of God and we can expect perfection. Let me illustrate. Romans 5 says that Adam is a figure of Christ and goes on the point out some of the similarities as well as some differences and the allegory begins. God uses the natural man to teach about the spiritual man thus the invisible things of him are clearly seen. <<<

What does that have to do with what I wrote?

>>>Along the way, more symbols are added to give depth to our understanding but the natural man is always first. (1 Corinthians 15:46) Some confusion comes because the symbols can be use more than one way. For instance Esau is the natural man and Jacob is the spiritual man but when Jacob becomes Israel, he become the natural man and Israel is the second born. When the church comes into the picture, then Israel is the firstborn. Perhaps this is why there are no firstborn sons in Christ's genealogy.<<<

Perhaps? Is that a fact, or are you assuming?

>>>But back to Adam. Adam and Christ are the head of their respective races. Adam was not born physically and Christ is not born spiritually. Christ was created in Adam and Adam was created in Christ. An interesting metaphor God has wrought. You say that the church is spiritual. Does Christ have a spiritual mother? You make the same mistake the Catholic Church makes when it says Mary is the mother of God. You confuse natural things with spiritual things. Christ was not created in the church, it was the other way around. The church was created in Christ just as Eve was created in Adam. The church is the bride not the mother of Christ.<<<

So, you are saying that Christ was created in Adam, and Adam was created in Christ; but the Church cannot be both the mother and bride of Christ? LOL! Why not? Why one and not the other?

Let me try to explain it another way. Now the words of Christ are as follows:

"[The] Jerusalem which now is … is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal 4:25-26 KJV)

Some might claim that Paul wrote that, but Paul was merely an instrument. Those are Christ's words, and Christ said, "Heavenly Jerusalem is the mother of us all."

For certain, that comparison is allegorical, in particular if Christ is included in the "us," as I am claiming; but we shouldn't discard it just because it doesn't fit our agendas. Let's put together everything we know so far: we know this "woman" is Zion:

"… as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." (Isa 66:8 KJV)

Let's assume this is also referring to Zion because we know this woman is also travailing in birth:

"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered." (Rev 12:1-2 KJV)

Now the devil was waiting to devour her child (v.4,) but he failed. This is Zion's delivery of Christ, not as a baby, but as an adult; and possibly shortly before his ascension to God's throne (Rev 5:5ff):

"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." (Rev 12:5 KJV)

And this refers to her other children at that time:

"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev 12:17 KJV)

The early Christians had the testimony of Jesus Christ, and we know the devil went to war with them after Christ's ascension to God's throne.

So, we see one woman whose children consisted of both Christ and the early Christians. That can only be the woman in Gal 4:25-26, if she is the mother of us all. We also know the Church sits on mount Zion:

"But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant . . . " (Heb 12:22-24 KJV)

Therefore, as aforementioned, it is easy to assume that the great woman in Revelation 12 is the mother of us all, which is the Church.

Philip

>>>>I don't mind making assumptions when it comes to doctrine, but realize that little mistakes lead to more mistakes. Can we read the types correctly. I am certain that the types in God's creation teach the same doctrine as the bible. This is just a suggestion, but you may want to look at your own interpretations with more scrutiny.<<<

Maybe you can post some scripture to explain yourself more clearly. I have read your use of the Adam/type model, not only in this exchange, but in others: and I cannot follow your reasoning. That is, I have no idea what you are implying, or why. And some seem to be pointless, for example:

"Along the way, more symbols are added to give depth to our understanding but the natural man is always first. (1 Corinthians 15:46)"

I have no idea how that could possibly relate to the matter at hand, which was a comparison of the "mothers" mentioned in Gal 4:25-26 and Rev 12:1-2,4-5,17.

Paul first mentioned Adam in chapter 15 in this context:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22)

That statement was in reference to the resurrections and Christ's eventual defeat of death (v. 23-26.) But what else was Paul trying to get across? It appears that he was simply trying to explain that there is a carnal and a spiritual body, and that the carnal body cannot inherit the kingdom of God:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Cor 15:42-50 KJV)

In my OPINION, in all that, Paul was explaining that the two sons of God, Adam and Jesus, were not similar, but different: one was carnal, and the other was spiritual: one represented death, the other represented life. We know Adam was also considered THE son of God, because of this:

"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke 3:38 KJV)

You also made this unsubstantiated allegation:

"Does Christ have a spiritual mother? You make the same mistake the Catholic Church makes when it says Mary is the mother of God."

How is what I wrote similar the claim of the Catholic church? We only have your opinion, since you provided no scriptural support, whatsoever. If you are going to make such an accusation, you should at least have the courtesy to explain, using the scriptures, why it is similar.

This is another of your unsupported claims:

"Christ was not created in the church, it was the other way around. The church was created in Christ just as Eve was created in Adam. The church is the bride not the mother of Christ."

Prove it! While you are at it, please explain your objections to my interpretation of Revelation 12 in post #69, as it relates to the Church in Galatians 4, using scriptural references. I don't believe you can.

Anyway, I am challenging you to prove your unsupported claims.

Thanks,

Philip

>>>Adam is a figure of Christ. There are similarities and differences; the types are not the very image.<<<

What does that mean, and why is it important? Did you know that the word "type" cannot be found anywhere in the King James Version, Old or New Testaments? Obviously God did not consider it the least bit important. Why do you?

>>>As Adam had no earthly mother, I suggest that Christ had no spiritual mother.<<<

Do you have proof, or does it simply not seem ethical to your carnal mind? :) You do know that Israel was both the Lord's wife and son in the Old Testament, don't you? Do you have a problem with that, as well? See Jer 3:8, 14, 20, 22; 31:9, 32; Isa 54:5; and Hos 11:1 for examples.

I surmise you deem the "Church" more as people, than as Spirit. But it is a spiritual entity, that can be thought of in this way:

If the Father loved Christ from before the foundation of the world (John 17:24;) and if Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Pet 1:20;) and if Christ suffered since the foundation of the world (Heb 9:26;) and if Christ was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev 13:8;) then what better way to nurture and comfort Christ after his resurrection than by the "Mother" Church?

When the "Church" delivered Christ, and He ascended to the Father, Satan was angry and went after the "Church:" first with a "flood," which I assume to mean contrary doctrine. When that didn't work, Satan went after the individual members of the Church (the remnant of her seed.)

Everything fits Revelation 12 perfectly, when the context of Galatians 4:25-26 is included.

Now recall this prophecy of the Church by Joel:

"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." (Joel 2:32 KJV)

According to Joel there were two "types" (if you will) of early Christians: those who called on His name, and those whom he called: the chosen remnant. That remnant, like Christ, was chosen from before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4,) and they were the ones who first trusted Him (Eph 1:12.) After He was "delivered" (e.g., ascended to the Father,) then Satan went after that remnant.

It is important to note that the real chosen people were Christ and his faithful remnant, all chosen before the foundation of the world, and all out of Israel. That was the point of Romans 9:27 and 29: that "Israel" was comprised of only a remnant and a chosen seed, respectively: and, according to Joel, all were Christians.

There is another way to look at it. Christ was born knowing nothing, just like us. Recall that after his encounter with Satan; that is, after Christ rejected Satan's offer of all the kingdoms of the world (Matt 4:8-9,) angels came to Christ and ministered unto him. (Matt 4:11.) Christ was in a continual state of learning until his ascension to the Father. So, in a sense, Christ was also "being born" of the ("Mother") Spirit; and He was finally "delivered" just prior to his ascension to God and to his throne!

>>>I like your reasoning on these matters especially your use of scripture to support your arguments but your aversion to dispensationalism is telling.<<<

Dispensationalism is faulty, new-age theology, that marginalizes Christianity. What is there to like?

>>>A few verses to support my position, Proverbs 25:2, Romans 1:20, and 1 Corinthians 10:11. They suggest that both creation and history can be used for prophetic interpretation.<<<

Let's take each verse in order:

1) " It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." (Proverbs 25:2)

I cannot disprove that verse supports your position; because I do not know what your position is. But I can assure you that chapter has absolutely nothing to do with what I have been explaining in Revelation 12. Rather, it appears to be a lesson in humility, with one of the best examples being this verse:

"For better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou shouldest be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen." (Proverbs 25:7 KJV)

2) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20 KJV)

In this chapter Paul is warning against all sorts of ungodliness, generalized in this verse:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom 1:18 KJV)

In verse 13 Paul's admonition contains a similar "preamble" to the one he gives in Romans 11:25:

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;" (Rom 11:25 KJV)

3) "Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come." (1 Corinthians 10:11 KJV)

This is another warning by Paul to the Church: this time against the sinful acts and deeds of the Israelites of the past. Again he begins his admonition in a manner similar to that in Romans 11:25.

>>>The types are there, the debate is in how they are used. There are lots of examples throughout scripture for instance you would not expect the pearl of great price to come out of Israel because the pearl comes out of the sea (nations). <<<

I still don't understand your use of the word "type," or why you feel it necessary to use it.

In the case of the parable of the pearl, the parable immediately before it refers to treasure hid in a field; and in another parable: that of the wheat and the tares, the field is the world. In another, the kingdom of heaven is a net that gathers sea creatures of every kind, which are then separated into the good and bad, like the wheat and the tares.

Therefore, it appears Christ was trying to teach the faithful that the kingdom will contain people of all kinds: both Jews and Gentiles; but only the righteous ones, or as Peter said:

"Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2 Pet 3:13 KJV)

>>>Facts and Theories as to a Future State. <<<

That link is to some of Grant's new-age (Plymouth Brethren?) doctrine where he makes a big deal out of nothing.

>>>Question: did God write the acrostics in scripture or did men? <<<

All of the scripture is "written" by the finger of God. The scribes, like John of the Revelation, were mere instruments. That is why the writings of poor shepherd boys, like David, and uneducated fishermen, like Peter, put the works of the giants of the classics to shame. Peter explained it this way:

"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:19-21 KJV)

Peter is explaining that, unlike the words of today's commentators, who attempt to interpret prophecy for us: prophecy came direct from God, void of the interpretation of "middle-men." Therefore, we can have faith in the infallibility of the scripture.

Philip

No matter. We still have Galatians 4:25-26 which states that heavenly Jerusalem is the mother of us all, and that is a hard nut to crack.

No its not. Christ had a natural mother, Mary or Israel. In order to show that Heavenly Jerusalem is the mother of Christ you must show that Christ had a spiritual mother.

I guess all things are possible; but in Revelation 12 the “mother” must also be the target of Satan, along with her Christian children. How does Israel fit into that scenario, unless the Church is Israel? There is no evidence of that.

Every false doctrine has some evidence or it would be put to rest. When you compare Israel and the Church, Israel is the natural man and the Church is the spiritual man. Consider something you said in post 71

In my OPINION, in all that, Paul was explaining that the two sons of God, Adam and Jesus, were not similar, but different: one was carnal, and the other was spiritual: one represented death, the other represented life. We know Adam was also considered THE son of God, because of this:…

You have noticed the differences now look at some similarities. You may be aware that the bible divides into 5 Pentateuchs. The number 5 always divides into 4+1, so there are four groups in the Old Testament and 1 in the New Testament. The natural man always comes first followed by the spiritual man.

Compare the Pentateuch of Moses to the New Testament;
Genesis corresponds to the 4 Gospels
Exodus to Acts
Leviticus to Paul's letters
Numbers to the General Epistles - Peter, James, John and Jude
Deuteronomy to Revelation

It is easy to contrast the natural man with the spiritual man but the journey is remarkably similar. Of course the natural man is first and Genesis give the history of the natural man and ends in a coffin in Egypt while the Gospels give the history of the spiritual man and ends in the resurrection and ascension. In Exodus you have the natural man leaving the bondage of Egypt beginning his journey to the Promised Land. In Acts it is the spiritual man leaving the bondage of the city which spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. The church is in this period right now.

Leviticus takes the natural man into the earthly tabernacle and in Paul's letters the spiritual man enters the heavenly temple. This is especially notable in Ephesians and Hebrews. Paul's letters divide into two pentateuchs and Ephesians and Hebrews are in the third spot in their respective pentateuchs which corresponds to Leviticus.

Numbers takes the natural man into the desert or world and the general epistles take the spiritual man into the world. The number 4 in scripture speaks of trial and testing. Finally Deuteronomy brings the natural man to the threshold of the earthly promise and Revelation brings the spiritual man to the threshold of the heavenly promise.

In scripture, everything is in its place. Romans 5:14 says that Adam is a figure of him that was to come. We must have something in common between Adam and Christ for the word figure to be used.

If Joseph Smith had known about the structure of scripture he might not have written the Book of Mormon.

Seven

>>>No its not. Christ had a natural mother, Mary or Israel. In order to show that Heavenly Jerusalem is the mother of Christ you must show that Christ had a spiritual mother.<<<

You have yet to show any evidence that Israel was referenced as Christ's mother, natural or spiritual. Christ, on the other hand, compared the sorrow of his disciples (over His crucifixion) to a "woman travailing in birth:"

"Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do ye enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me? Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you." (John 16:19-22 KJV)

LOL! Now compare that statement by Christ with this one (also by Christ):

"And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne." (Rev 12:2-5 KJV)

Who was that child, and who was the woman that brought forth the child? We know from verse 5 that the child was Christ. And we know from the following verse that the woman was the Church:

"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev 12:17 KJV)

That remnant were the remaining children of Abraham (now that Christ had ascended): those by faith in Christ:

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29 KJV)

But Christ was also a child of Abraham:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Gal 3:16 KJV)

But once Christ was crucified, and ascended to God and his throne, the devil (through his children, the non-believing Jews) made war with Christ's followers, as indicated in Rev 12:17.

Putting it all together, the great woman of Revelation 12 spiritually "gave birth" to Christ, and she spiritually "gave birth" to followers of Christ. That could only be the woman in Galatians 4:26, which is New Jerusalem, which is the Church:

"But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal 4:26 KJV)

The fact that you don’t happen to agree makes it no less valid. If you can come up with anything to support your position, other than your opinion (for example, some scriptural references,) I will be glad to take a look.

-:)

Philip

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.