Experts Watch For Worldwide Reaction To Jerusalem Construction

[dmatic]

I hear you. Lost power again last night after ninety mile an hour winds and rain. Lots of tree limbs etc. Just after I hooked up the incubator to an inverter this morning, the power came back. It is a wonderful thing....Look forward to your response. Thanks

[Wiskey Reb]

Took me a few days to get back. But here is as brief a response as I can manage to your questions. I'll start with Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 and the supposed replacement of the Levitical priesthood.

First, one must get Hebrews in context. It is a book, imo, which is particularly hazardous to proof text. And even then, Paul touches on several thematic issues which are easy missed in a perfunctory reading, as the theme of Hebrews builds, or, perhaps narrows to a particular point. In form, it bears a resemblance to Jewish midrash, especially in that it touches on major thematic issues, presuming the reader to be mindful of the ramifications and issues the author is building upon.

In the first chapter, he establishes the topic of the firstborn. This idea sets the tone for a large portion of the discussion. The right, or law, of the firstborn, as leader and priest, is the original structure of biblical G-dly authority. At this point, it would be of benefit to read a short essay on the firstborn here....http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/489376...?s=srcon&tab=y . Firstborn status is best seen in its truest form, as the first to open a womb. In terms of earthly inheritance, a firstborn son of a woman is assogned that status. That statues cannot be taken away on the basis of a different fistborn from another wife more beloved. Yet, on the basis of merit, it can be transferred to one best equipped in character and ability to fulfill firstborn responsibilities. Firstborn status is not a state of privelege, but of responsibility.

For Israel, at the golden calf, the system of firstborn leadership was set aside in leiu of the Levitical priesthood. That is not to say that the firstborn system is done away with. Once G-d establishes an order, it is permanent. So, Melchizadek represents the permanance and heavenly position of the firstborn. The levitical priesthood is of another order, and lower in authority and status. Yet, the Torah for each is different. The Torah for the firstborn is demonstrated in Genesis while that for the Aaronic descendancy is given in Leviticus.

In chapter 2 verse 5 of Hebrews, the topic for discussion is focused. The perspective is placed on the world to come. The perspective is not the here and now. This is the context for what the author is communicating....a context almost always set aside by replacement theologians. While one may have a preview, even a spiritual deposit, on the New Covenant, people still sin, people still don't know G-d, that covenant, while pending, while offering hope and salvation, has not yet arrived.

Chapter 3 continues the discourse, pointing out Jesus as a priest of a heavenly calling, while, the firstborn of Israel, the leaders in the wilderness, as spies in the land od Canaan, brought back an evil report, which caused the whole generation to die in the wilderness and not enter Canaan. Yet, Caleb (the dog), Joshua were righteous. This establishes the Tzaddikim, particular righteous persons of a generation as its leaders, filling the firstborn status.

Chapters 4 and 5 discuss the weakness, later mentioned in ch 7, of the Levitical priesthood passed down to Joshua. It was unable to give ultimate rest. That cannot be attained via a representative priesthood. A representative priesthood does not carry the ability of a righteous firstborn to bring about the true heart of the pattern layed out by the creator. Yet, while that does not preclude a levite from being on the spiritual level with a true tzaddik, neither does it require it, since the one is made as an image and a type of replacement for the other. As such, it is given authority until the moral status of the nations firstborn can be rectified, providing for them to resume their duties. Enter the Tzaddik, the righteous king, king of peace....the order of Melchizadek. The role of Melchizadek is to return his bretheren back their firstborn function....as a nation of priests. In the Hebrews text, this idea culminates at the end of ch 6, speaking of Jesus as the "forerunner for us". The one who goes ahead and makes a way for others.

Now, to the controversial language of ch 7, vs 11 and 12. Verse 11 indicates that the levitical priesthood never sent the prior firstborn system into obsolescence. Rather, the Melchizadek priesthood remains the greater and older...a firstborn of of priesthoods. If this had not been the case, there would have been no need for mention of any other priesthood than the Aaronic.

Now, in vs12, the Greek, as well as the future tense aspect of the whole book, as stated above, indicates a future transference of priesthoods, a transfer from one priesthood to another....not the present doing away with, but the future of the world to come. While Christians may wish to view the Levitical priesthood, and laws relating to it as obsolete and discarded, the reality is, not yet...not till the world to come. Presently, it acts as a shadow and pattern of the good things to come, and is still of great importance, both now and in the messianic reign. In the world to come, every firstborn will be both equipped and heart ready to fulfill his obligations.

[Wiskey Reb]

Now to the issue of taking the kingdom away and giving it to a nation bearing its fruits. Everyone wants to claim that status, especially the church. Yet, whether the Roman establishment church or the diminished "remnant church", that just simply cannot be historically established, a consistent and enduring history does not exist. But, there is a group who can be identified....the northern kingdom. They were a people of whom G-d stated were no longer a people, and a people, in 2 Peter, seen as the dispersion, having become a nation of strangers....yet not gentiles. They continued in church history for about 3 more centuries, then were killed off. The remainder of them established rabbinic Judaism which continues today. While the church carries a hellenized and romanized Jesus, the rabbinics teach Yeshua hamashiac.....and even moreso, a purer understanding of his teachings. Having the NT writings is a big deal, but character is bigger.

As to becoming jealous, leading to repentance.....of Christians?....hardly. After the fall of the Jewish aristocracy, the teaching of the temple, the meanings of the laws, the teaching of the greatness and future rise of the Melchizadek priesthood transferred to the pharisee lead rabbinic community, the heart of which was composed of returned diaspora Jews. In the millenium, in will transfer back to the levitical order and to the melchizadek messiah. In the world to come, the priesthood and kingship of the firstborn will return forever.

In time sequence, from the beginning of the world to its culmination, the transitioning of authority looks like this....

Firstborn, Aaronic, Rabbinic, Aaronic, Firstborn.

[Wiskey Reb]

A short video 7 min. Which explains the firstborn.

https://www.alephbeta.org/course/lecture/will-the-real-firstborn-please-stand-up

Then this one as a sequel.

https://www.alephbeta.org/course/lec...-twos/autoplay

Then this...

https://www.alephbeta.org/course/lec...heory/autoplay

[Wiskey Reb]

So, the links above are to a series in which the language of scripture is utilized to provide an understanding of the ramifications of the firstborn. The issue being that to favor a son because of his mother is strictly forbidden after the Exodus. Yet, it is the very thing that took place in the story of Joseph, which is one of our primary teachings concerning a human messiah. It is the idea that one not of the natural right of firstborn is given that designation. This, in the biblical example, is what causes jealousy, and ultimately brings about repentance and restoration. Then the real firstborn, Reuben, who Jacob recognizes as his firstborn in his final blessing, will be restored to his status through repentance, and the atonement made by Joseph. So too, in the end, Israel, who is not the first nation, but is goven firstborn status, will cause its brother nations to turn and come around right. In that day, in the way of messiahs rule, that messiah driven entrance in olam haba...the world to come...there is no Jew or gentile. There is no jealousy toward a brother given a status. But the actual firstborn, Adam, will have precedent. The pattern will return to the garden. No Jew, no gentile, just G-d's order and shalom.

Joseph wore a coat of many colors given to him by his father. Rabbinic tradition teaches that there were seventy stripes of color on that coat, corresponding to the seventy nations. So, the precedent given to the Jews as G-d's firstborn (though not the oldest nation...think Esau), and to messiah ( the firstborn of tzaddikah), is to restore all hearts to G-d in a fashion that is restorative. Yet, messiah, by placing his bretheren above himself, and having made a way for them, will still be first in all things. In the end, the million dollar question is, will the nations allow G-d's people to play there restorative role, or insist on their claim of replacing them in it, and as Esau and Joseph's brothers did, be willing to destroy to the righteous in an attempt regain their birthright?

[dmatic]

Wow, Wiskey! What a response! Thanks for your efforts. There is much in these posts for me to digest, and that I would like to comment on, and inquire about. I did pause to read the first link but have not opened the others, yet, that you recommended. I even signed up to receive stuff from the first one. Though I have some questions about that article, too. Part of the problem today, in trying to understand what God is doing, and has done, in the past, and what He intends to do in the future, seems to be properly identifying all the "players" and interpreting their roles and ours.

For example, (and I've asked your opinion in other threads but not sure we have settled in agreement about definitions, yet), there seems to be confusion as to identifying Jews, Gentiles, and Israel. In that first article the guy wrote: "Here both the "judgment" of the oppressing nation is recorded as well as the wealth which was to accompany the Jews on their departure. In Genesis, only a judgment is mentioned." This statement seems to be in error, and shows the confusion that is out there, namely, that all Israelites are Jews. Certainly, in the 'natural', "Jews" are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews.

Then, further down in the article he makes a statement about Shem dying and passing the firstborn status to Abraham. This is incorrect. Actually, Shem outlived Abraham. I can give you proof from scripture if you disagree. Shem was the "King of Righteousness", Melchizedek, who lived before the flood and after, to whom Abraham, and subsequently, Levi, who was still in Abraham's loins, paid tithes to Shem.

I need to get busy with the day, so hope to continue with thoughts and comments about more of your posts later. Thanks, Wiskey.

[Wiskey Reb]

[QUOTE=dmatic;2700692]

For example, (and I've asked your opinion in other threads but not sure we have settled in agreement about definitions, yet),

Not positive, but I don't think we agree.

t

here seems to be confusion as to identifying Jews, Gentiles, and Israel. In that first article the guy wrote: "Here both the "judgment" of the oppressing nation is recorded as well as the wealth which was to accompany the Jews on their departure. In Genesis, only a judgment is mentioned." This statement seems to be in error, and shows the confusion that is out there, namely, that all Israelites are Jews.

They are...depending on the definition you are using.

Certainly, in the 'natural', "Jews" are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews.

Again, all depends on context. If you are attempting to establish a blanket definition, there is not one, neither in Tanach nor in the apostolic writings. The definitions are contextual.

Then, further down in the article he makes a statement about Shem dying and passing the firstborn status to Abraham. This is incorrect. Actually, Shem outlived Abraham. I can give you proof from scripture if you disagree. Shem was the "King of Righteousness", Melchizedek, who lived before the flood and after, to whom Abraham, and subsequently, Levi, who was still in Abraham's loins, paid tithes to Shem.

There are timelines that suggest that Shem outlived Abraham, and timelines that suggest that Abraham outlived Shem. But I don't see the relevance of that to the topic. It seems like an irrelevant detail to the topic unless I am missing something. The date of Shem's or Abraham's death has nothing to do with the issue of firstborn that I can ascertain.

But I agree with you that there is confusion regarding who is and who isn't Israel. Most of that confusion is on the part of Christians who are either confused by vernacular or who think they are something that they are not. I don't know many Jews/Judah/Hebrews who share that confusion.

In Tanach there is Israel, which includes 13 tribes, the descendants of Jacob/Israel. Then there is Judah, the southern kingdom, and Israel, the northern kingdom. As well, there are dispersed Israeli's, from both northern and southern kingdoms, who are included among the nations. Then there are Jews, who are Judah, and Jews who are Judah, Benjamin or Levi. And there are gentiles/goy (im) which may be a Jews, or Israelites, or non-Israelites.

In the "New Testament", there are Jews who are Judeans, possibly of any tribe; Jews who are Judah, Benjamin or Levi; and Jews who are of unknown origin, from all nations (possibly scattered from Judah, or possibly just Israelites, the text does not clarify, but likely both, seeing as they were celebrating Shavuot). Likewise, there are scattered Israelites who are called tribes, or called a nation, or called gentiles. Then, there are "gentiles" who are diaspora Israelites from both Judah and Israel. And, there are gentiles who bear no genetic linkage to any of the twelve tribes other than possible semitic ancestry. There is no blanket statement, or simplified way of defining who is who....context, historic data and literary content are the only indicators in the NT regarding who is who. If context and setting are missed, then identity crisis ensues. Of course, one could be subjective and decide on the basis doctrine, but that gets murky pretty quickly.

For centuries, different ideas have been bantered about concerning who is who. Underlying those arguments lies a bounty of doctrinal bias. But, for me, seeing the "NT" as a Jewish set of documents, talking about Jewish things within a Jewish context of a Jewish community, all the while attempting to include Jewish people who forgot how to be Jewish, as well as non-Jews who are attaching themselves, pretty much clarifies it for me. But, if a person wants to view the NT as a Christian set of letters, that departs from the Jewish context, in fact shunning Jewishness, and is communicated in a Greek thinking way to a Hellenized bunch of gentiles and former Jews, then one will certainly read it a different way. Likewise, if one decides to read it from a dogma of a Hellenized gentile who thinks that belief in Jesus makes him a Jew(or Israel), then one will read it a different way even again. To, me, it comes down to what is the most reasonable context in which to read it. I, having started out viewing it from a Christian, gentile centric, perspective, but having become better educated regarding Jewish literature, thought and religion, it is clear, to me, that it is a Jewish document all the way....but that's just me. You're welcome to view it from whatever perspective you wish.

[dmatic]

I'll start with Melchizedek in Hebrews 7 and the supposed replacement of the Levitical priesthood.

... Firstborn status is best seen in its truest form, as the first to open a womb. In terms of earthly inheritance, a firstborn son of a woman is assogned that status. That statues cannot be taken away on the basis of a different fistborn from another wife more beloved. Yet, on the basis of merit, it can be transferred to one best equipped in character and ability to fulfill firstborn responsibilities. Firstborn status is not a state of privelege, but of responsibility.

...that covenant, while pending, while offering hope and salvation, has not yet arrived.

... it is given authority until the moral status of the nations firstborn can be rectified, providing for them to resume their duties. Enter the Tzaddik, the righteous king, king of peace....the order of Melchizadek. The role of Melchizadek is to return his bretheren back their firstborn function....as a nation of priests. In the Hebrews text, this idea culminates at the end of ch 6, speaking of Jesus as the "forerunner for us". The one who goes ahead and makes a way for others.

Now, to the controversial language of ch 7, vs 11 and 12. Verse 11 indicates that the levitical priesthood never sent the prior firstborn system into obsolescence. Rather, the Melchizadek priesthood remains the greater and older...a firstborn of of priesthoods. If this had not been the case, there would have been no need for mention of any other priesthood than the Aaronic.

Now, in vs12, the Greek, as well as the future tense aspect of the whole book, as stated above, indicates a future transference of priesthoods, a transfer from one priesthood to another....not the present doing away with, but the future of the world to come. While Christians may wish to view the Levitical priesthood, and laws relating to it as obsolete and discarded, the reality is, not yet...not till the world to come. Presently, it acts as a shadow and pattern of the good things to come, and is still of great importance, both now and in the messianic reign. In the world to come, every firstborn will be both equipped and heart ready to fulfill his obligations.

Thanks, Wiskey, for your response. You have written much that I would like to investigate with you, but, sadly, time, or the lack thereof, prohibits a fitting response by me. I chopped up your good post here, and I apologize, but there is so much to investigate in our search for truth about all this, and it is almost overwhelming. While I appreciate your permission to think however I want regarding these issues, presumably with the intent of not arguing, or 'agreeing to disagree', there is danger in that approach. Reminds me of everyone doing what is right in their own eyes, which leads to death, not life. "Gifts" have been given to us until we all come to agreement...not with each other, because we could both be wrong, but with Him with whom we have to do. There is one faith. Not Judaism and Christianity and their various internal doctrinal dogmas. I am not so much interested in continuing the wall of separation that divides, but rather in achieving unity of THE faith. Thus, establishing peace.

If you want to discuss the law of the firstborn, we can. But, I think it should be clarified that the firstborn male that breaks the womb, who is to be given to God, is also the firstborn of the man, not only of the woman. He retains that status until such time as he proves himself unworthy. i.e Rueben and Esau. But, there are laws, too, protecting the 'hated' son. In Esau's case, his father pronounced a blessing on him and his descendants, that someday they would be given an opportunity to prove themselves, after escaping the yoke of serving the younger.

Or, we could discuss various identities, and their definitions of who is a Jew and who is Israel. I think you mentioned that you think only Christians are confused as to who is who, but scripture indicates otherwise. Namely, there are those who call themselves Jews, but are not, being of the synagogue of shatan.

I agree with you that there is much blindness in the various "Christian" communities, but I suggest that there is also much blindness in the various "Jewish" communities. It is interesting to note that Isaac was pretty blind when bestowing the blessing on Jacob instead of Esau. Isaac was the promised son! Yet blind. It is possible a reverse blindness is occurring today as to who is who... Many are masquerading today. Which probably explains the "controversy". We all need healing from our blindness, so we look to God for proper discernment.

A couple days ago I read Three chapters in Isaiah, 42-44 where I am still pondering what is meant by "Who is so blind as My servant?" passage. Any ideas?

[BugoutBear]

Good friends of mine bought an apartment in Jerusalem. They invited me to stay there whenever I want. I have other friends who are moving there and have a standing invite as well.
It's an amazing place.

ETA: If you go back to the 1920's and earlier it was the Jews who were referred to as "Palestinians" by the Arab media. It's the roots of today's Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.

[Wiskey Reb]

[QUOTE=BugoutBear;2700882]

Good friends of mine bought an apartment in Jerusalem. They invited me to stay there whenever I want. I have other friends who are moving there and have a standing invite as well. It's an amazing place.

And isn't it an awesome thing when the walls between your family break down from " You are this" and "You are that", but rather default to "I don't care where you are from or who's teaching you follow, but I am you and you are me...we are Jews, so you are mine and we are G-d's? Feels just like two sticks being bound together I bet...kinda like hine ma tov.

ETA: If you go back to the 1920's and earlier it was the Jews who were referred to as "Palestinians" by the Arab media. It's the roots of today's Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement.

Isn't it interesting how there have been Jews migrating back to Palestine for centuries. Yet, it wasn't until the 70 nations began calling it Israel instead of Palestine, and calling the Jewish people Jews instead of Palestinians, that the land began to reblossom ?..... The land, and the messiah have been dressed, via the nations, in their rightful clothes (and more and more are seiing it), and now will they dress messiah in his....regardless of who he turns out to be...? Seems too I recall a certain legend of a Jewish farmer who was told, by a certain son of a cousin, that messiah had come. So he quit farming and became a tailor and clothing merchant. But that's just a legend .

Yet, as you say, there are still many, who through BDSM, persecutions, replacement theologies, jealousies, etc, who's hatred is growing. Some folks used to call that anti-messiah. But the definitions have all changed, thanks to doctrines.