Challenge

[DrRay777]

I would like to post a challenging question, to which I know the answer, but I want to stimulate discussion and possibly see where peoples’ understanding is in relation to what God has given me through the Holy Spirit. If there is a good reception, then I may go on to other things, perhaps in this section or others. I understand that there may be differing opinions, but if we are all operating by the same Spirit, then there should come understanding and general agreement. I am hopeful that I can offer some of what God has so graciously given me so that it may help others. The question is as follows - What is the significance of Isaiah chapter 4 for the end of days in the plan of God and how do you believe it will play out?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[Mark C]

Good question, Dr. Ray, and welcome as well.

I have long read the end of chapter 3 and concluded that it HAD to apply to the post-Republic of Amerika, (With apologies to the preterist set here, of course. ) and arguably the rest of the world soon as well. It could be either a physical (war, famine, etc) cause or a spiritual one (few God-fearing men), or both.

What interests me just as much, however, is a related point which bears on your question.

I have often (and recently) had the "polygyny is not God's preferred plan" debate yet again. The verses which FOLLOW Isaiah 4:1 are an interesting refutation of that claim.

Blessings,
Mark

 

[welltan]

We of course would love to hear what God has given you. Having dealt with poly individuals for years, I have found them to be very open to all ideas and new truth as given from God. It can be frustrating to individuals that hear from God in a poly study environment. Most poly-oriented men are very independent of thought, be it theological or social. I guess that is how their belief structure came into being. One’s ideas received from God are very precious, and private truth is as hard to hold onto as the wind. However, with all of us blowing at once, we do come up with some God centered windstorms of discourse.

In the verse you mentioned (Isaiah 4:1), the context is very important and chapter three speaks of why there are a shortage of men (sword and war) and many female oriented problems. These problems seem to produce the reproach that is usually viewed as being barren or single. There is conflict of thought as to when all this happens (varied opinions of eschatology). My opinion on the “seven” is that it is just referring to the plurality of the action. (one or two or a few women would seem to be ok doing this even before the number of seven women are reached).

The force of the scripture is the desperation of the women as a motivation and the fact that they are doing it (take hold—Hebrew--- chazaq.) as a positive action. It can be translated as binding him or sustaining him or in other ways. But it is strong action toward the man. It will happen.

But at the moment it is not happening. If one wants to bring it closer to today then the verse works toward plural as the action and choice is by the women and not all about the man. Today’s society objects to a man having or taking hold of any wives, but if women want to live that way then it is their choice and nothing to condemn the man for. That is actually the only approach to plural that might work in the modern world anyway. But that is just an attempt at putting the verse into our day.

My single wife takes hold of me and I end up taking the garbage out and doing chores.

 

[^_^]

I believe Isaiah 4 to be both literal and figurative.
Literal in that women and men will both learn their respective place, one that is neither controlling and dominant nor spineless and weak. I think we all have lots to learn here.

Now, about the figurative. From my perspective, I find it very interesting that in Revelations there were 7 churches and all these 'brides' were latching on to 1 husband. Fast forward to today, and look at all the christian churches telling Yahushua that they will bring their own robes (righteousness) and eat their own food, but want him to take away their shame. Gentlemen and ladies, I propose it's time to stop the foolishness of thinking we can eat anything that moves, and act any way we please and still think Yahushua will come and find faith on the earth. Please show your faith by your actions, and have your actions line up to the inspired word that the noble Bereans searched to see if what Paul taught was true. (while studying, remember that they couldn't compare Paul's teaching to his own writings, otherwise it would have been circular reasoning)
Paul knew that Grace, Mercy and Justice were all in TaNaK, ask any of the heroes of faith listed in Hebrews, they were all familiar with it.

 

[Anonymous]

Gentlemen and ladies, I propose it's time to stop the foolishness of thinking we can eat anything that moves...

Why couldn't we eat anything that moves? Shouldn't we believe the whole Word of God?

Genesis 9:2-4: "And the fear of you and the dread of you is on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the heavens, on all that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea -- into your hand they have been given. Every moving creature that lives is food for you. I have given you all, as I gave the green plants. But do not eat flesh with its life, its blood."

When He said, "I have given you all, as I gave the green plants", that was a reference back to Genesis 1:29-30. If it's a moving creature, if it lives, and it's been cooked..."it's what's for dinner." I'm not going to go out and order a kangaroo bacon burger with a side of llama ribs, but if that's what Believers eat in another culture, I certainly wouldn't suggest they are foolish. Perhaps they have more faith in God's Word than we do.

Blessings,
David

 

[Tlaloc]

The food discussion is a worthy one, but if anyone is going to pick it up as much of their post can they segway to an independent thread about it? I would probably follow both, but it a topic all its own and would probably make this thread confusing to follow both.

Anyway, yeah ^_^, some people get mad at me when I point out that when the New Testament talks about scripture it isn't talking about itself in its own context. I believe it is the word of God, but when Paul talked about scripture it was Tanak.

Well, thats all I have for this one. Thanks all.

 

[DrRay777]

I must say I am impressed. Thank you all for your response. Please understand again that I am new to all this. God quite independently taught me about Isaiah chapter 4 and the true symbolic meaning without allowing me to know about Christian polygyny until I joined this website a few days ago. Until then I thought I was one of the only ones in the world who understood that Isaiah chapter 4 could be and would be a literal event. The deeper spiritual meaning is also found in Isaiah and by knowing about the symbolism of God’s mathematics. I will wait to see if there are going to be any other responses before I ‘spill the beans’. You guys have a lot of Spiritual insight, but I guess I should have known that since you have already embraced Isaiah chapter 4 and are operating in the principle. As I mentioned elsewhere, it is one of the most difficult subjects God has had me deal with as a teacher of the Word.

Well, since someone brought up the idea about health and eating, I will start a new thread with another of the concepts that God has so graciously revealed to me about that subject. It will be challenge number 2. Please keep it coming guys.

Be blessed,

Dr. Ray

 

[^_^]

When He said, "I have given you all, as I gave the green plants", that was a reference back to Genesis 1:29-30. If it's a moving creature, if it lives, and it's been cooked..."it's what's for dinner." I'm not going to go out and order a kangaroo bacon burger with a side of llama ribs, but if that's what Believers eat in another culture, I certainly wouldn't suggest they are foolish. Perhaps they have more faith in God's Word than we do.

Blessings,
David

So are you saying that first he gave everything (and I mean everything) then later changed his mind and placed restrictions on eating, then again later decided to rescind those restrictions.
If I might say so, saying that someone eats forbidden things and is justified by faith is as irrational as saying taking my neighbor's wife by faith justifies me.

 

[Mark C]

This is some great stuff, ^_^

So are you saying that first he gave everything (and I mean everything) then later changed his mind and placed restrictions on eating, then again later decided to rescind those restrictions.
If I might say so, saying that someone eats forbidden things and is justified by faith is as irrational as saying taking my neighbor's wife by faith justifies me.

And I hope the somewhat (perhaps overly, given what many of us here are guilty of ) severe chastening of Dr. Ray didn't scare him off for too long. We are definitely interested in your insight, Doctor. I always find the food discussion interesting, since it is one of the things which helped me to understand just how TRUE His Word really is!

 

[Anonymous]

So are you saying that first he gave everything (and I mean everything) then later changed his mind and placed restrictions on eating, then again later decided to rescind those restrictions.

Well, what do the Scriptures say?

Gen. 1:28-30: "And Elohim blessed them, and Elohim said to them, "Bear fruit and increase, and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the creatures moving on the earth." And Elohim said, "See, I have given you every plant that yields seed which is on the face of the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed, to you it is for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to every creeping creature on the earth, in which there is life, every green plant is for food." And it came to be so."

This passage states that all green plants and trees were given as food. Then, after the flood...

Genesis 9:2-4: "And the fear of you and the dread of you is on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the heavens, on all that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea -- into your hand they have been given. Every moving creature that lives is food for you. I have given you all, as I gave the green plants. But do not eat flesh with its life, its blood."

God specifically said all, and to make sure He was perfectly clear, He drove the point home with "I have given you all, as I gave the green plants". There was to be no misunderstanding here, for them or for us. All means all.

We know that Noah understood the difference between clean and unclean animals at this time, since Gen. 7:2 specifically states that he was to take seven pairs of all clean beasts, but only one pair of the unclean beasts. Recognition of the clean vs. unclean animals was commonly understood during Noah's time. There simply were no restrictions regarding which animals could be eaten, which is why no gentiles (the descendants of Noah) were ever condemned for eating pigs, for example. Prior to the flood, only plants and trees for all men. After the flood, all creatures for all men. After Sinai, only clean animals for Israel alone, all creatures for everyone else. After Messiah, the distinctions are removed and it's back to all creatures for all men.

These passages make it abundantly clear that there is no morality in Israel's dietary laws, because God's morality never changes over time. If it's a moral issue, it's wrong for all people in all ages. Sodomy was punishable before, during and after the Mosaic Covenant. Adultery was punishable before, during and after the Mosaic Covenant. Murder was punishable before, during and after the Mosaic Covenant. But dietary laws never applied to anyone except the nation of Israel, for the specific purpose of teaching the differences between the holy and the profane, the clean and the unclean.

Could we see God wrapping up another man's wife in a blanket and asking Peter to lay with her, even if it's to demonstrate a spiritual truth to him? Is it even remotely in His character to ask Peter to commit a clear sin, even if He has no intention of allowing Peter to actually do it? If God wouldn't command Peter to do something sinful (not once, but THREE times), then what does that say regarding the sinfulness of eating unclean animals after Messiah said "It is finished"? If we think what goes into our mouths can make us unclean and insist on chasing the symbols (dietary, circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath, etc.), we are still thinking carnally just like Peter was and we're missing the substance of the spirit. Shadows are nothing. Messiah is everything.

You can disagree with my conclusions, but not these passages of Scripture. If our theology conflicts with God's Word, it's not His Word that needs to adapt.

Blessings,
David

 

[Mark C]

It's pretty simple, really. And it's not a "moral" issue, it's a "blessing" issue.

I choose to eat what He said to eat, because He made me, and He knows best. He said if I do certain things, as opposed to others, there would be a blessing. Food is among those that He drew a distinction, and it's "not too hard" for me.

I choose to do this because His Word says so, and I love Him. I accept that He blesses obedience because of Who He Is.

If I choose NOT to eat pork and shellfish, among others, I will be spared certain diseases. Even science is starting to figure out a bit of this. (I have mentioned enzymes in pork like cadaverene and putrescene before; the disease vectors for most flu epidemics are almost ALWAYS through pork, because of DNA similarities. It is well-accepted that such toxins as mercury and other heavy metals are far more concentrated in bottom-feeding scavengers than fish with fins and scales as well. IOW, there is evidence to support His teachings, and He didn't change our bodies our those of animals 2000 years ago.)

Finally, I don't get hung up on "legalism". If I were to be stranded in the mountains after a forced landing, and have to survive, I would be prayerfully thankful for any 'food' He gave me - from rabbit to worms, maybe even animal droppings - in order to "choose life" and sustain my body. Walking in obedience to His torah (teaching and understanding) is about making good choices from the options He provides, day by day.


Finally, I note that even adultery, which carries a death penalty, does not generally result in instant death. If it did, we wouldn't be having some of those discussions about divorce...



Blessings in Him,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

It's pretty simple, really. And it's not a "moral" issue, it's a "blessing" issue.

Well there you go. If it's not a moral issue, it can't be an obedience or sin issue. Disobeying God IS a moral issue. Committing sin IS a moral issue. So this falls under Christian liberty and cannot be imposed on other believers. Until someone can demonstrate that eating pork, shellfish or whatever else is SINFUL in Scripture, then I am required to take a stand against this kind of thinking.

If you are being blessed by not eating certain foods for health reasons, then that's wonderful, but it's not an obedience issue. There are several foods forbidden to national Israel that I choose not to eat, but I'm certainly not OBEYING or DISOBEYING any dietary laws. For example, I choose not to eat pork in my house. So when we eat out, I always order beef ribs rather than pork ribs. But when I'm having dinner at a friend's house and he's baked a ham, I don't give it a second thought. The "legalists" throw down lectures and refuse to touch it because they're still living under the wrong covenant. Hagar has no place in MY house and neither does her son. I might not eat something that Israel was permitted to eat, and I might eat something that Israel was not permitted to eat. I wonder which category chocolate falls into? :lol:

It's much the same with someone being circumcised today. Doing it for health reasons is fine, because in the physical, it means nothing in our covenant. But if someone wants to be circumcised in a misguided attempt to obey Mosaic law, then I'm with Paul in that they should go the extra mile and chop it all off. Self-righteous piety disguised as "obedience" is still self-righteous piety. (I know that's not you; you've already said you're not legalistic on the matter, but for some, this is more important and more often discussed than the crucifixion.) Peace.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Mark C]

I almost didn't respond to this last post, David. After all, at the bottom line of conscience, and doing our best to be "obedient" to Him, I think we are in agreement.

But, there is a logical flaw in the first sentence here ("then" clause does NOT necessarily follow from the "if").

If it's not a moral issue, it can't be an obedience or sin issue. Disobeying God IS a moral issue. Committing sin IS a moral issue. So this falls under Christian liberty and cannot be imposed on other believers. Until someone can demonstrate that eating pork, shellfish or whatever else is SINFUL in Scripture, then I am required to take a stand against this kind of thinking.

Because I have freely chosen to be a bondservant of my Savior Yeshua, then I do my best to obey Him, and to walk His "narrow path". I do this because He asks me to, and because I have committed to honor the Covenants I have made. I won't get hung up on whether any failure on my part, of omission, commission, or even misunderstanding is "sin" or a "moral" failing, or just "lack of knowledge"; Hosea 4 warns that me and my house could be destroyed regardless. Guess I'll just have to work out my own salvation with "fear and trembling".

I note, of course, that I am not, and have not, sought to "impose" anything upon my fellow brothers in Him. But I will try to faithfully teach what He teaches -- preferably by direct reference to His Written Word, and even in the context of a Hebraic understanding when appropriate.

But it was your last line, about "taking a stand" against "this type of thinking" that struck a warning chord with me; neither do I accuse you of doing this. And I note that He is not talking about something that even results in being told "I never knew you!" But all of us should take heed of His warning:

"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -- Matthew 5:19*



Blessings,
Mark









--------------------------------------
* That Matthew 5 chapter really seems to have a lot of pithy stuff to argue about! :?

 

[^_^]

Now I can truly see why there is such confusion and disparity in the church. It truly is every man for himself, and that's not the way it is designed to be.
We seem to have been given the right to butcher the word to suit ourselves, and truly it is to our own destruction.

I'll submit to what Yahushua said, not to do as the Pharisees did for they say and do not, but to do as he (Moshe) said. The Shem Tov clearly says that, whereas the Greek translation missed that point, most likely to bring it in line with church theology. Yahweh told the people that he spoke with Moshe, not in dark sayings, but as a man face to face. With Peter, it was a dark saying, with Moshe, he spoke clearly.

 

[Anonymous]

If it's not a moral issue, it can't be an obedience or sin issue. Disobeying God IS a moral issue. Committing sin IS a moral issue.

Because I have freely chosen to be a bondservant of my Savior Yeshua, then I do my best to obey Him, and to walk His "narrow path". I do this because He asks me to...

I can't tell if we're saying the same thing or not. Could you tell me your understanding of what "sin" is? To "do your best to obey Him" implies two things:

1. He has commanded (not asked or suggested) something that He expects us to do.
2. To choose to disobey that which He has commanded us to do is sin.

The implication, as I read what you're saying, is that those believers who do not likewise "obey" must therefore be "disobeying". But isn't disobeying God sin? How can we separate them?

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

Yahweh told the people that he spoke with Moshe, not in dark sayings, but as a man face to face. With Peter, it was a dark saying, with Moshe, he spoke clearly.

Just curious. What part(s) of the Mosaic law/"torah"/"nomos" do you believe do NOT apply today?

Blessings,
David

 

[^_^]

I think they all apply, and I'm sure you have a challenge for me, as to why we don't stone people or something like that.
Ever think about that? However, we by our own transgression have lost that right, this is something David seems to have understood in his not having Absolom stoned for taking David's concubines. Had we walked in righteousness and continually purged evil from our midst, things would be totally different today. But for now, the wheat and tares must grow together, you know that.

 

[Mark C]

I can't tell if we're saying the same thing or not. Could you tell me your understanding of what "sin" is? To "do your best to obey Him" implies two things:

1. He has commanded (not asked or suggested) something that He expects us to do.
2. To choose to disobey that which He has commanded us to do is sin.

I don't think we're too far apart here (other than some of the obvious ones ) -- at least as far as definitions; I know you think some things are "done away with" that I do not.

In general, I prefer other words to "sin", because they seem more clear. To deliberately disobey something that you Master tells you to do (or vice-versa) is more properly called "rebellion" in my mind. It should be clear to someone; the "don't do that" is unequivocal.

Paul said something to the effect that to do that which I know better than to do is 'sin for me'. Such considerations help to clarify the line between obedience "because I love my Master" and (for lack of a better term) rote legalism.

An example or two might help.

We keep the Sabbath. Not to the point that it becomes "a burden", but certainly to the point that we "set it apart" and count it a joy. I don't worry about how far I can walk, or whether turning on a light is "work". But there are times when I'll think to myself, "that can wait until tomorrow". There are occasionally things I know that to do on His day of rest would be clearly wrong -- and I don't do them.

Because we love Him, there are certain things we don't eat (and, no, I don't even think they are "food" in the sense of that word -- any more than I would consider a dog dropping in the yard "food".) But - there is no conflict in His torah. To preserve life, I would eat pig parts, or even that yard apple. In both cases, I'd pray that He keep us from potential harm - because neither are good for our bodies, but beat starving.

Which reminds me of a last example. We have dealt with smoking as a family issue. It is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible, of course, but I think there's a good pragmatic argument to be made that it is not good for us, and therefore does not constitute being a "good steward" of what He gave us. To that extent, for those who understand and so believe, it is "sin", and I will talk about it in that way to those in my house, under my authority. To the rest, I harken back to that advice to teachers in Matthew 5, and simply won't ever encourage anyone to try it.


Blessings,

Mark

 

[Anonymous]

I think they all apply, and I'm sure you have a challenge for me

Lol....not a "challenge", even though that is the name of this topic. Actually I just wanted to better understand how you follow the Mosaic Law when God saw to it that it would be completely impossible to follow in this age. I mean, without a temple in Jerusalem, how can you obey the instructions on how to sacrifice once a year? Where would you even find a Levite today? It just seems to me that you'd have to pick and choose which bits of the Mosaic system to obey, and even then, you'd have to twist their application beyond the point that Moses would even recognize his own laws. Maybe I'm missing something here. I guess what I'm asking is how can the Mosaic law be followed, as written, when the necessary elements have passed away? It seems to me you'd end up with a lot of improv, adding and taking away from what God actually said to do.

Love in Him,
David

 

[Anonymous]

We have dealt with smoking as a family issue. It is not explicitly prohibited in the Bible, of course, but I think there's a good pragmatic argument to be made that it is not good for us, and therefore does not constitute being a "good steward" of what He gave us. To that extent, for those who understand and so believe, it is "sin", and I will talk about it in that way to those in my house, under my authority. To the rest, I harken back to that advice to teachers in Matthew 5, and simply won't ever encourage anyone to try it.

Smoking is a really good example. I have never smoked, have no interest in smoking, and would certainly never allow anyone in my family to smoke. Like the pastor of my church often says, "Smoking won't send you to hell, it'll just make you smell like it." It is also addictive, a narcotic, and has a whole slew of health problems associated with it. Like you, I would never encourage anyone to try it and would likely lecture them on the various dangers associated with smoking.

The difference is that I recognize that smoking is not a sin. If a brother in Messiah enjoys smoking cigarettes or cigars, he's free to do so (outside my house, of course) and I'll make sure my family understands that although it is not something I will allow in my family, it most certainly is not a sin. I will never allow them to get the impression that just because I will not allow it, that it is somehow sinful. I could use the same argument against caffeine, overeating, etc. I confuse a lot of religious people because in one breath I'll severely warn a brother against cigarette smoking, and in the next, I will rush to his defense if another brother tries to condemn his smoking on the basis of it being "sinful". I have the liberty to smoke, I simply choose not to. I don't need something to be sinful for me to avoid it. I will not allow my daughters to dress like street-walkers-in-training like other girls their age, but when they are older and get married, they will dress as is pleasing to their husbands. It's not a matter of sin, it's a matter of liberty. God's Word clearly spells out what He requires of us. Beyond that, we have freedom.

Love in Him,
David