|
|
|
"THE EARTH IS THE LORDS" Arnold Kennedy aekennedy@xtra.co.nz
(THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE GOD OF ISRAEL TREATS EVERY PART OF THE PLANETS SURFACE IN THE SAME WAY).
INTRODUCTION. That God is not a universalist racially, that is, Scripture does not show that God treats all races equally, has been expounded in the authors book, "The Exclusiveness of Israel". In this paper we will look at the question of land, to see if God treats all parts of the surface of the planet equally. This will lead us on to the Millennial Kingdom. It will be "news" to most Church people that, in the Bible, some parts of the globes surface are, or are to be, considered as Gods special property, whilst some are not. "EARTH" "LAND" "GROUND," ETC. We will make a start by considering some verses containing some of the words, such as "earth","land", "ground", "field", "dust", "world", and "people", which unfortunately have been very well mixed up by translators. Seldom do any of these words mean the whole globe, and the latter two do not normally refer to humanity in general. Let us consider two verses to start with: 1 Corinthians 10:26+28 For the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof. Without an examination of the context and the individual words in this, it would easily be taken that "the earth" refers to the whole globe, but the world for "earth" in this Psalm is " erets". As each nation had its own "erets" or individual land, the word "earth" refers to that one particular land of the context. The context of the verses above is described as being "The Lords". Also, the word "world" here is "tebel" and likewise this is used in a localised sense, that is, it is used of a particular places, such as where crops are grown or where lightening actually strikes. Thus these verses refer to a limited land area of the globes surface. The use of two of these words in conjunction is not uncommon. Again, the "earth" is erets and "the world" is "tebel". In, "The Lord shall judge his people" there is a limitation to "His people" (= laos) that few might expect. Certainly this limitation is not popular church teaching. Likewise the "earth" is that "earth" of His people. Earlier in Psalm 98 we read, "He hath remembered his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. Make a joyful noise unto the LORD, all the earth: make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise". That the people concerned are isolated to, "The House of Israel" is confirmed by the context and also by the use of the Hebrew word "am" = "people", a word which is used of a tribe or kindred people. The "ends of the earth" is limited also to this context, and the phrase has to do with boundaries of land. Obviously there is prophetic content because the passage is about seeing the salvation of the our God", that is, "The God of Israel", in the future. As quoted, Psalm 24 has a tense problem. The "is" in the first verse is an added word as seen by the italics in the KJV, so it can be ignored. The second verse is future tense, "Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? or who shall stand in his holy place". This is amongst the millennium psalms and concerns the time when, "For the kingdom is the Lord's and he is the governor among the nations", that is, He is the governor of those nations of the context. The inclusion of the article here denotes the Israelite nations. At present we are taught to still pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven", so the time of the Lord being "governor" is future. This Psalm concerns a generation of the future. "This is [added word in italics] the generation of them that seek him, that seek thy face, 0 God of Jacob. Selah.[verse 6]. All the kingdoms on the globe are not spoken of as belonging to God, and the word "generation" in the Greek of the LXX is a word meaning "race-stock-family-tribe". In His temptation, Jesus confirmed that all the kingdoms of this entire globe did not belong to Him. The nature of the future tense in our first verse quoted in Psalm 24 is confirmed in the verses below: "The Kingdoms of this world" are those kingdoms of the particular "kosmos" of the context only. To be a "kingdom", there must be a king, the kings people, the kings territory and the kings laws. The Kings laws were made a covenant only with Israel. Descriptions of the kings territory are plentiful, such as: Gen. 13:15 "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever". There is no mention of this being swapped for another territory, even if Israel was expelled from that land for disobedience, in terms of the Covenant. Prophecy determines that a remnant of Israel would again return to that land. Here we find a different word for "earth" [ge] which usually refers to the whole surface of the globe. The "nations" that are described in verse 18 as being angry is the word "ethnos" or races. Look at this question, "Are then all the races rewarded or just, "Thy servants the prophets and the saints?" Now we are looking at a difference between people and land territory. Some of the territory on the planet is described being holy or separate and as belonging to God. One part is the land promised to his "holy" = "separated" people, known as "The Promised Land". God says He cares in particular for this piece of land. Here we find God separating one part of the planet from other parts, and note this is always. This particular piece of real estate is that promised to Abraham, and confirmed to Isaac and Jacob. Here again we find the "everlasting" or "always" confirmed. Therefore this piece of land, known as the Promised Land, is Gods forever. It is the inheritance of Israel, even if Israel is expelled so that the Land can enjoy her Sabbaths whilst Israel is in exile. The time of this land becoming "an everlasting possession" will come Israelites have had some temporary possession, as shown in Old Testament history, but the Land remains Israels future inheritance.
"MY LAND", "THE LAND OF ISRAEL", AND "MY MOUNTAINS These are unique expressions that are all found in Ezekiel 38, a fact that might well upset some people with a traditional British Israel interpretation of this prophecy. "My land" is a sanctified place, -2 Chron. 7:20, "Then will I pluck them up by the roots out of my land which I have given them; and this house, which I have sanctified for my name". That being plucked up by the roots happened does not change the 'set apart' or sanctified nature of "My Land". "My land", and "Upon My mountains", is where God says He will come to "break the Assyrian". "MY LAND" is a select place indeed. It is where God will come to plead for His people. What is parted? It is "My land". Here "nations" is not " am", or Gods people, but is a different word. It is where God will eliminate the Idumeans (Edomites)-Ezek. 36:5. The word "heritage" is "nachalah" that is used in the sense of land property rather than of people. "MY MOUNTAINS" is an interesting phrase - one reference is Isaiah 65:9, "And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there". When? It is after the slaughter of God's people who, "did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not" -V12. "My mountains" is a particular place where a despondent and afflicted Israel becomes eventually comforted. Those who declare that God has finished with the Promised Land should note that Gods people are to be gathered from where they were scattered, to the original place where they were expelled from originally. They were expelled from the Holy Land and we will see that eventually they will return there. In the interval Israelites are "placed" outside of the Promised Land because of their iniquity. A PLACE FOR GODS PEOPLE DURING THE DIASPORA. When God dispossessed His people from "My Land", He appointed a place for His people so that "His land" might "enjoy her Sabbaths"-(Levit.26:34+43). The theory that the USA is Zion has arisen because of the failure to separate:
Before we continue, it would be well to establish that there is this difference. Quoting Rev. 12:14, "And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent". This sums up an area of prophecy which shows that Israel was cast out to, "where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days". The point is, the time in the "wilderness" is for a fixed limited stated time. Something else happens after that. The diaspora (or scattering of Israel among other nations) comes to an end when Israel is delivered or "gathered" from among the other nations. The diaspora is not confined to Judah, as some want to claim to support a view that "Zion" equates with the USA. This gathering principle starts to be expressed early in the piece, such as in: Can we all not agree and say, "Amen" to this? This is not the only passage expressing this with an "Amen" at the end. The time of the is when, "Behold the Lord God will come", e.g.: Can we not see that the timing of the two events is different? Can we not see that different time periods are involved, with one temporary and one ongoing? Or as Jeremiah puts it: Jer 35,1-12, "At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people. Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest. The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry. Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things. For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God. For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel. 8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither. They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock. For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he".How else can we read, "Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither", and "He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock". To what place? So we can see here both the diaspora and the "gathering" in this verse. All this has nothing to do with, "Judeo-Christian" or Jewish doctrine as both of these give wrong identification of who is concerned, even if they may have the "this place" right. These two passages say the diaspora is not for all time, and the verse above, and a host of others, declare Israel is to be "gathered". There are too many verses like Ezekiel 11:17, "Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will even gather you from the people, and assemble you out of the countries where ye have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel", that confirm this. THE DIASPORA. When King David possessed much of the Promised Land, he was told by the prophet Nathan that God would appoint this new interim place for his holy [separate] people. This in no way is about the "gathering" to the land of Israel. It is about where Israel is placed when cast out of the Land. It is the Promised Land God has His sights on. The land Israel is cut out from is described as being "coasts" to the North and West of The Promised Land, and that somewhere there would be a monarch of the house of David on a throne, but not ruling as an autocrat. Those who declare that this placement was permanently outside of Palestine base their interpretation upon an invalid translation and failure to note what is established is the ongoing nature of Davids Throne-(1 Chron. 17:14), and the host of passages that speak about the "re-gathering". "Move" as in "move no more" in these two verses is ragaz, a word that means "trembling" or "disquieted" rather than "relocated". This possibly refers to the fact that the places the Israelites were expelled to, such as the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, do not have strong enemies on any common border and thus would no longer be disquieted by such enemies. This gives the meaning to, "be moved no more", i.e., they would be "disquieted no more" in this way. Neither does the word, "plant" insist on permanence, as is claimed. Please view Deut. 29:28, "And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day". This curse for Law-breaking was to those already brought into the Promised Land. From there and elsewhere from whence they had been scattered, Israel is to be "gathered" to the land promised to the descendants of Abraham [through Isaac]. Almost every book of the Old Testament prophesies of this event. From this Promised Land, Israel [not what is commonly referred to as "Jews"] will reign with Jesus over the other nations of the earth with "a rod of iron". Some people use such verses to say that prophetic Zion and Jerusalem do not refer to the old places in Palestine, so as we go along please keep this in mind and then judge whether the land that God sanctified and set apart "for ever", still stands as such. Some will claim that Gods Land means any place where Gods people happen to be at any one time, citing the first part of passages such as: The second half of this quote describes a much-prophesied pattern of prophecy we all would do well to take heed of. It reads, "and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of". This gives weight to: Hebrews 13:5, "For he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee". And also what God said to David, "I will not take my mercy away from him". This means that God will do what He says about "And will bring thee again to this land". The word translated here as "again" is translated in the KJV as "return" 391 times and "again" 248 times, as well as some other ways. Others point to the USA as being Manesseh but at the same time they claim the USA is the final destination of ALL the tribes and do not seem to be able to see the conflict in these statements. There is no prophecy about all the tribes of Israel being gathered to Manesseh, but there is plenty about their being gathered to the land promised to the fathers. Then some point to: claiming that this means that God has finished with Old Jerusalem, but they do not choose to put forth what immediately follows on this passage because it does not support their thesis: Ask yourself if this "For I say unto you" is addressed to the Old Jerusalem or to a Prophetic Jerusalem. What this verse means is that Jerusalem is desolate only for a period " till" this stated time. That the Land is desolate to those, "in Moses seat" does not say it is not Gods Land still - in fact the word " till" says the opposite. The word, "desolate" simply does not have the "forsaken-for-ever" application that some try to place upon it, as we see in: The Promised Land will no more be termed "desolate" as it is during the long diaspora.. The story about the woman of Samaria at the well is also wrongly used to say that Jesus says that worship was to cease at Jerusalem "forever". To quote one with this view, "This is testimony by Christ Himself that worship of God was to cease in Old Jerusalem and Old Palestine". But could this be true? Jesus pointed out that He was speaking about the mode of worship rather than to the place of worship, saying: After this hour that "now is", Jesus did of course again minister in the Old Jerusalem! He did even die there! Then it is claimed that the USA fits the description of Matthew 21:43-44. Hosea is not telling us about the behavior of the tares within Israel in the USA here, as is claimed. Does not all the rottenness and Babylonian behavior within Israel, as described by Hosea, happen within the USA before the following verse happens? No, 1 Peter 1:4 tells us about the "stone" and says, "Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone". The word "stone" both here and in Matthew 21 is "lithos", not "petros". This passage goes on to say, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people", and then goes on to link this with Hoseas prophecy (V 10) about the House of Israel as in Hosea 2:15 just above. Where is the place of the "there in this verse"? It is where Israel was when "she came up out of the Land of Egypt, that is, in the Promised Land. It is also claimed that Micah chapter four is about the USA, as the place where this all happens. This might be so if the USA was the final destination and place of the re-gathering of Israel, but the reference used (Sheldon Emry), ""For now shalt thou go forth out of the city and thou shalt dwell in the field and thou shalt go even to Babylon," is about going to Babylon, and so if the USA was Zion, then Zion would be Babylon. Would all the twelve tribes then be gathered to Babylon in the end? No, Israel is "brought back" from captivity in Babylon. Likewise, Ezekiel 38:11 about "unwalled villages" may define the USA but in no way does it define a final place for all Israel. "Unwalled villages" of course could equally refer to New Zealand and Australia as being part of the interim places where God has made an interim "place for My people Israel". Maybe even todays United Kingdom could apply as a place of unwalled villages. Of course, to compare the territory of the USA with the present State of Israel is meaningless as the State of Israel does not occupy the land from the Euphrates to the Nile Rivers. THE LAND THAT IS GODS IS A FIXED PLACE The land that is Gods is a fixed place, and is not described as that land in the possession of His holy people when outside of the Promised Land. God cares for wherever Israelites dispersed to in order to care for His people, and He responds to their repentance both individually and nationally. We read about of setting land boundaries ("bounds") for His people where His people should live "alone", or be separate from other races. Numbers 23:9-10 The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations. The word "lot" has to do with land, and it appears that this relates to the land promised to Jacob. To "dwell alone" indicates an area or areas with boundaries around them, with only the one race within these boundaries. No other people than "Jacob" are ever spoken of as being "the lot of His inheritance". The first part of 2 Chronicles 7:14 is very well known. "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer that is made in this place. For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually". But how often do we hear the latter part "That My name may be there for ever" quoted? Ask yourself, "where is this". Jesus came to one people and to one land. (Note: Acknowledgement is made here to R.N.Phillips of Australia to parts of the next two paragraphs). On this the Bible is clear; Jesus came to that part of the globe that belonged to Him. The word "own" appears twice in the verse but in the first clause it is neuter gender while in the second it is masculine gender. Therefore John is referring to two different things. The first clause states that Jesus came to His own possessions [neuter gender] His land, His Kingdom, His city, His temple. In the second clause the term "His Own" is the Greek term oi idios [masculine gender] that means, literally, the members of ones own household. In this case it refers only to those who had authority over His Kingdom, city and Temple. (The vast majority of Israel were scattered abroad in the Dispersion and, at that time, were still classed as "not my people".) Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: "for great shall be the day of Jezreel". The place where Hosea spoke this was in the Promised Land. Israel will "come up out of the land" where they were with both Houses having "one head" and return to the Promised Land. See below who this "one head" is. So how could the place Israel was driven to be their final destination if they are to be gathered from there to go back to their "own land"? Some like to say that this applies to Jesus time, but Jesus did not reign and prosper as a King at the First Advent. Paul confirms, "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God"-(Rom. 9:26). Jezreel was a place of much historic judgment, and at the Second Advent, "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 1:8). Gods people need to be much aware of, "Great shall be the day of Jezreel" instead of hiding behind smooth doctrines. "TO THEM WHO DID RECEIVE HIM". Going back to John 1:11, before we can complete the translation of verse 11, we have to look at the beginning of verse 12. The Greek text of verse 12 begins "but to those who did receive Him". In this clause and the last clause of verse 11, we have another instance of the AV translating two different Greek words as one English word in this case, "received". The last clause of verse 11 states, in effect, those who were ruling over His possessions neither received nor accepted Him [as the owner]. It points to outright rejection, not through ignorance [which is covered by the phrase does not recognise Him in verse 10], but by wilful refusal to accept Him as the rightful owner. However, in the first sentence of verse 12 the word "received" has the meaning of to welcome or to accept willingly. Hence, while the Judean Nation rejected Him at a national level, there were individuals in that Nation who did both recognise and receive Him gladly. Verses 11 and 12 read in the Greek text: They were not everyone on earth who were born of bloods [plural in Greek] or by the will of the flesh [John 1:10-13]. Jesus came to His household who were born by the will of God. Thayers Lexicon says, "Household is used as stock, race, descendants of one". The phrase translated the sons of God in verse 12 of the AV is quite wrong. The Greek phrase is "tekna theou" which means "children of God". Immature children, no doubt, but it does not mean sonship; for sonship points to growth and ultimate maturity. It is only "children" = teknon (of Israel) who have the potential to become "sons" = huios of God. Nor does it have anything to do with the false doctrine of "adoption". On the contrary, the phrase forcefully asserts: a. the natural genetic relationship of a child with its true father and, hence, b. those children of God are the biological descendants of God Himself. Note that John 1:13 states: Which were born, not of blood [plural], nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Verse 13 states that those who were given the right to become children of God [again] were those [begotten]: a. not out of bloods - which is of ordinary human descent, c. nor out of [the] will of a man - which was Abrahams desire for an heir,
The Greek verb "begotten" is plural in this verse and so cannot be limited to the birth of Jesus. Isaac was not born of Abrahams will. Abraham was past that. Isaac was begotten by Gods will when He regenerated Abraham and Sarahs ability to have a child and to give that child an individually incorruptible spirit. Isaac was thus begotten from above, as are Isaacs descendants from the time of their conception. In this portion of John 1 we find the origin of those who can believe in Jesus. Also we find where they did not [and do not] come from! Jesus came only [alone] to those begotten from above by God. He is shown to be the Redeemer of only His Kinsmen. GOD DOES SET LAND BOUNDARIES. We see God setting land boundaries in several places, e.g., The exact area of this land promised to the lineal seed of Abraham is clearly defined in Scripture. God bound Himself with an oath about this. Within this area He defined land as an inheritance for each tribe of Israel. The land was to be held in trust for descendants of each tribe and was not to be sold to foreigners, or outside of each family. The Tribes sinned in not doing this. Although Israelites were dispersed for disobedience, the prophets declare that those of His people who are in a non-mixed state will eventually be re-gathered to this piece of defined land that they will occupy during the millennial reign of the Lord Jesus. Ezekiel defined the millennial borders in Ezekiel 47:21 and this includes much of present-day Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. We have seen that there is a land about which God says He cares for -[See also Isaiah 5:1 on about this vineyard]. It is described as "His vineyard" to which He will come again. Luke 19:26 says, "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return". Ask yourself, would this be about returning to the same place or to a different place? So the whereabouts of the "vineyard" is given. Most churches do not accept that Jesus will destroy those occupying the "vineyard" at His return. They think that the present State of Israel is part of the prophesied re-gathering of Israel. That land of the "vineyard" will be flattened and "judged by fire" when the Husbandman returns. The vineyard planted by God is the Promised Land. Emperor Hadrian rebuilt the present city of Jerusalem in the third century after every stone had been thrown down -[Matt 24:2 There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down]. [Tourist beware- you will not have been told this! You will not be walking "where Jesus walked"!]. If the husbandman is going to return to the same place, this is the site of the New Jerusalem which John saw descending from above. Some claim that this is the centre of the landmass of the earth, as if this has some bearing. Jesus confined His ministry to the area of the Promised Land, saying in Matt. 15:24, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." This confirms, "He came unto His own" ("own" with both meanings). It is those of His own people who are "lost" = "set aside for punishment" whom He came to redeem. It includes no other race at all. No other race can become "lost" = apollumi.. Jesus sought only "lost sheep" or Israelites. SPECIFIC PLACES ARE IMPORTANT TO God. In the book of Deuteronomy alone there are some thirty or more references to the importance of a place. We are not free to choose our place of worship or service. Note the emphasised words in the following Scriptures. Matthew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. When is, "Thou shalt be called by a new name"? Some people with bad imaginations say this new name is "Christians", but they have the timing wrong! What is "Thy Land" which will become a "fruitful field"? ZION, A SPECIAL PLACE TO GOD. Let us consider a special place, namely the City of David, known in Scripture as "Zion". This city is always used in the context of Israel alone. We quickly see that it is a place that is special to God, and to Israel. We will look at a selection of passages containing the word "Zion" and then consider whether or not "Zion" refers to Jerusalem. Psalm 2:6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. Psalm 78:68 But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved. Psalm 132:13 For the LORD hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. God will indeed "Bring back the captivity of His people"! There are many passages that mention both Jerusalem and Zion, and some say this is a form of parallelism that indicates that both words have the same application. So we must examine this claim. "JERUSALEM" IS NOT "ZION". Jesus was born in Bethlehem that is described as "The City of David" about which we read, "For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). So Bethlehem is where the "City of David" is. Jerusalem is about 10-15 minutes drive by car away from Bethlehem, and is in the inheritance of Benjamin, whereas Bethlehem is in the inheritance of Judah. The fact that the two are intimately connected in history and prophecy does not mean they are the same identities. So there is this distinct difference between Jerusalem and the City of David. The City of David has to do with the King whereas Jerusalem has to do with the Temple. This is a pattern found through the Old Testament where the High Priest was found in the Temple whereas the Monarch had his Palace. The two offices are different in function, but both Church and State are to have the same faith. This gives meaning to, "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem". A casual reading may suggest that both "Zion" and "Jerusalem" are exactly the same place, but it is not so. Parallelism suggests rather the ongoing relationship that should exist between Church and State. This is shown in passages such as: That is, King David reigned from the "City of David" (Zion) before moving to Jerusalem. King David had major problems when ruling from Jerusalem. Again, King David had stayed in the "City of David" (Zion) until he finished building work at Jerusalem, thus showing there is a difference between the two places. Here again the Ark of the Covenant was brought from The City of David (Zion) to Jerusalem, this again showing there is a difference between the two places. King Solomon and those kings who followed immediately after him were all buried in the City of David rather than at Jerusalem. Note again that the "City of David" is "Zion", not Jerusalem. THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM. What are important are the prophecies that tell us where the centre of the millennial kingdom will be? These also tell us about who racially will rule with the King there. Other races will bring their offerings, but they will not be within the City of God. Preconceptions suggest that the "City of God" is Jerusalem, but it is Zion. The "City of God" is also described as "The New Jerusalem" Some people claim that the oceans remain and that "no more sea" refers to the "sea of ungodly men", but the word "thalassa" is about the oceans where ships sail-(Rev. 17:18). The references about people and children, planting vineyards and trees do not suggest a spiritual interpretation of "Jerusalem" even at the time of the "New Jerusalem". Neither do the verses below that mention boys and girls playing in the streets or about old men and old women being in Jerusalem. The earth will indeed be a "new earth" when it is "a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness". This vision of the New Jerusalem is what the Old Jerusalem becomes as the Lambs bride and is the "New Jerusalem". The following verses present to us a picture that is not often painted. They all confirm the multitude of Scriptures about the re-gathering of the House of Israel and the House of Jacob, that is, "all Israel". As Paul puts it, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob" (Romans 11:26". From whom? Who are cleansed? The passages all confirm that a particular "earth" is the Lords and that the people that dwell therein alone are described as being "The Lords". These verses confirm that the "Bride of Christ" is not "The Church" [in the popular concept]. So what is yet to happen? What better than to make some quotes that are worth reading carefully to see just who is involved! Here again is the Law of the King from Zion and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem. FINAL COMMENT. At the end of the last verse above, the word "whole" as in "whole earth" is not in the Masoretic Text. The word is simply "erets" and the Septuagint supplies "Israel" (genitive). Thus, this refers to the earth (land) of Israel. This study started with: We looked at "the world" = "tebel" as being a localized land area and "the fullness" has reference to what Josephs son Ephraim would become (Genesis 48:19 where it is translated as "multitude"). This passage goes on to say: "The hill of the Lord" is found only here and agrees with Psalm 2:6, "Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion". The references to this being Gods dwelling place cannot be missed, such as Psalm 76:2, " and his dwelling place in Zion". "Generation" here is "dowr" and is a word approximating "the circle of life" as it applies to the one particular posterity. This posterity is described in this passage (as always) as being that of "Jacob". The land promised to Jacob is the "earth" that is "The Lords". For ever!! Selah! |
|
Modified Monday, July 13, 2009 Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |