Hey everybody just want to start a discussion. I,ve been reading alot on here about old testament and new testament. I would like for us to define what we mean by Old Testamant because it looks like alot of us have different definitions and that we are equivacating. I will post my thought tomorrow when I have time. Looking forward to your thoughts.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Lets be clear
- Thread starter cbv3123
- Start date
Oooh, sure to be a touchy subject. I'll try to be as gentle as I can.
From traditional understanding I would define the "Old" testament to be the texts that were written before the arrival of the Messiah and the "New" testament to be the texts that were written during the time of the Messiah and the period immediately following. However, I usually don't refer to them in these terms when speaking with others who have some study time under their belt. I refer to the "Old" testament as the Tanakh (which is actually an acronym) and the "New" testament as the Messianic writings (due to the fact that they deal primarily with the Messiah). It's a much better way, in my opinion, to keep with the harmony of the scriptures.
From traditional understanding I would define the "Old" testament to be the texts that were written before the arrival of the Messiah and the "New" testament to be the texts that were written during the time of the Messiah and the period immediately following. However, I usually don't refer to them in these terms when speaking with others who have some study time under their belt. I refer to the "Old" testament as the Tanakh (which is actually an acronym) and the "New" testament as the Messianic writings (due to the fact that they deal primarily with the Messiah). It's a much better way, in my opinion, to keep with the harmony of the scriptures.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I agree with Todd's definitions. The Old Testament are those books of Scripture written prior to the 1st century. However, there is a distinction between the Old Testament books and the Old Law (or Mosaic Law). All of it is still God's Word.cbv3123 said:
In His love,
David
The Duke Of Marshall said:
Agreed, Todd.
While I will sometimes use the common terms for clarity, I particularly don't like the terms "old" and "new" because it tends to support the assertion that the "old" part was somehow "done away with", when He says otherwise. (Once people accept the Big Lie that He changes His mind, or that tradition matters more than any "old" stuff -- guess what the first thing people seem to want to twist His Word about then becomes?)
So I also try to use the term "Tanakh" (the acronym for what was referred to by our Savior in the "Torah, Writings, and Prophets" when He said, "it is Written"), and the Messianic Writings as well. I don't mind the term "Brit Chadasha" when talking with Hebrew speakers.
But to simply say "Scripture" seems to me like the best term of all, since that piece of paper inserted to divide the Word into two pieces is an invention of fallen man, and not YHVH.
Blessings,
Mark
A
Anonymous
Guest
" I would like for us to define what we mean by Old Testamant because it looks like alot of us have different definitions and that we are equivacating."
Good topic. I'm not sure I understand the question clearly. Are you talking about defining the books of the old or new testaments, or are you dealing with what the testaments are composed of by way of dealing with sin, redemption and revelation of God? Are you inquiring about the distinction between an old and then newer way that God deals with His people?
I expect this to be a very interesting topic.
John
Good topic. I'm not sure I understand the question clearly. Are you talking about defining the books of the old or new testaments, or are you dealing with what the testaments are composed of by way of dealing with sin, redemption and revelation of God? Are you inquiring about the distinction between an old and then newer way that God deals with His people?
I expect this to be a very interesting topic.
John
Hey everyone, was glad to see all the posts that came in on this subject so far. Im looking forward to more discussions like this. Ok, I will try not to write an essay, but here is my take on the "definition" of the Old Testament. The word testament is a synonym for covenant, so it can be stated "old covenant" or "old testament". I do not believe that the old covenant is the first 39 books of our scripture. It is a particular economy or governance that God inaugurated for a period of history. Starting with the covenant that God made with the children of Israel through Moses, and ending with the shedding of Christ's blood which inaugurated the new covenant. This is evident from Hebrews Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 and so on.There are plenty more references concerning this, but I believe these will suffice if read. Our division in our modern translations are the divisions of man and are inadequate for serious theology. In short, it seems that we all agree so far on what the old covenant or testament is.
However, it seems we disagree on the role that it plays in our theology. I believe that we are to interpret the old testament or covenant in light of the new covenant. Which is precisely what the book of Hebrews does. It is clear that the bible is a revelatory book Hebrews 1:1-3 Colossians 2:16-17 and there are many more references for that but those are just a couple of examples. Let me add this before i hold my piece, I do not recognize the Abrahamic covenant as part of the old covenant. The writer of Hebrews clearly limits what the old covenant or testament is and provides for us when it starts and when it ends. Thanks again for the fellowship we recieve, it is very edifying and hope we bring as much joy to you all as you do to us.
However, it seems we disagree on the role that it plays in our theology. I believe that we are to interpret the old testament or covenant in light of the new covenant. Which is precisely what the book of Hebrews does. It is clear that the bible is a revelatory book Hebrews 1:1-3 Colossians 2:16-17 and there are many more references for that but those are just a couple of examples. Let me add this before i hold my piece, I do not recognize the Abrahamic covenant as part of the old covenant. The writer of Hebrews clearly limits what the old covenant or testament is and provides for us when it starts and when it ends. Thanks again for the fellowship we recieve, it is very edifying and hope we bring as much joy to you all as you do to us.
The question now becomes more clear. I trust some diversity of opinion will flow from this thread and several faithfuls will chime in. I tend to be a bit short in my contributions of late but I will say this... I believe the Messianic scriptures are only properly understood when laid upon the foundation of Torah. Gross error flows from getting that backwards because Torah is the context in which the Messiah is given and we all know what kind of trouble flows from taking things out of context.
Curtis
Curtis
I believe the opposite of you cb, and I hope that is ok. I take my example from the Saviour, who quoted the "OT" when defending himself, other things, like Peter saying that there are those that can't understand Paul (NT) because they do not understand the Scriptures (OT). Or when He said that if you would believe Moses, you would believe Him, cause Moses wrote about Him. They grossly misunderstood the OT, therefore rejected the "cornerstone".
I see this today, where believers don't understand what the Annointed One meant about marriage, or what Paul said about himself or the Law because they don't understand the Law, much less how to explain it or interpret it.
So many passages that are twisted towards destruction because many don't understand the OT. Like 1 Tim 3 passages regarding "one wife". Understanding the OT and interpreting the passage with that will automatically change your mindset about THAT passage. Can't understand Hebrews without understanding the OT regarding priests and God's role for....
Anyway, I could go on and on I guess, I actually don't think we need to interpret one based on the other, we should see it as ONE book, that we compare against itself for proper understanding, or at least one is no more relevant than the other.
As per New Covenant and Old Covenant, I think they are the same thing, and I know I might take grief for this, but here it goes...
Hebrews 10:16
The Law in our hearts, not on stone, for all people, not just the "jews". Same covenant, just has to be remade, cause we broke it.
Yah:"Ahhh, you broke it, I will make you a new one, just like I said earlier."
Us:" Earlier?"
Yh:"Yes, you would know if you listened to my man Jerry in the OT." (i know He would not say it this way)
Us:"Awesome, what about the penalties and late fees, what about those.”
Yah:” Well, you are not qualified to pay those, but I have the PERFECT THING for that.”
Us:”thanks, what is in this NEW one?”
Yah:”the same as the old one….”
Us:”why does it have the same stuff in it if it is NEW?”
Yah:”Because you broke the one I gave you, I said NEW, not DIFFERENT.”
Us:”what if we break this one?”
Yah:”you won’t, I am giving you a personal copy, to carry with you, not on stone, but inside you.”
Us:”that is soooooo smart! We love this!”
Yah:”Uh…I am the Yah…I invented smart. You would not know what smart was if it were not for me. Now if you love me, keep my commands.”
I had a bank loan, it was a "covenant" with the lender to pay an amount every month, to live the loan according to the agreed upon terms. When the economy tanked, I fell farther and farther behind in the payments, until I had to give up the property. Fortunately for me, the bank was merciful (read this as “did not want my building in this economy”) and called me and said that they would forgive the past late payments, refinance the building at a lower interest rate, as long as I paid the back interest. The building is the same, the lender, the borrower, the length of the loan, everything is almost exactly the same, but it is still considered a NEW contract, covenant, agreement, with one small change, the interest rate, and the forgiveness of transgression, the past due amount, because I BROKE the old agreement. I could not pay it, not with the economy as it is. So my views are in line with my understanding of the Hebrews passage, the covenant has the same essence, but written on the hearts, and not on stone. I will bow out now before the usual fireworks regarding what has been fulfilled by the Messiah and is no longer required due to it being fulfilled, and what is still required due to not being fulfilled.
Please let us not go near the Sabbath or those arguments.
I see this today, where believers don't understand what the Annointed One meant about marriage, or what Paul said about himself or the Law because they don't understand the Law, much less how to explain it or interpret it.
So many passages that are twisted towards destruction because many don't understand the OT. Like 1 Tim 3 passages regarding "one wife". Understanding the OT and interpreting the passage with that will automatically change your mindset about THAT passage. Can't understand Hebrews without understanding the OT regarding priests and God's role for....
Anyway, I could go on and on I guess, I actually don't think we need to interpret one based on the other, we should see it as ONE book, that we compare against itself for proper understanding, or at least one is no more relevant than the other.
As per New Covenant and Old Covenant, I think they are the same thing, and I know I might take grief for this, but here it goes...
Hebrews 10:16
The Law in our hearts, not on stone, for all people, not just the "jews". Same covenant, just has to be remade, cause we broke it.
Yah:"Ahhh, you broke it, I will make you a new one, just like I said earlier."
Us:" Earlier?"
Yh:"Yes, you would know if you listened to my man Jerry in the OT." (i know He would not say it this way)
Us:"Awesome, what about the penalties and late fees, what about those.”
Yah:” Well, you are not qualified to pay those, but I have the PERFECT THING for that.”
Us:”thanks, what is in this NEW one?”
Yah:”the same as the old one….”
Us:”why does it have the same stuff in it if it is NEW?”
Yah:”Because you broke the one I gave you, I said NEW, not DIFFERENT.”
Us:”what if we break this one?”
Yah:”you won’t, I am giving you a personal copy, to carry with you, not on stone, but inside you.”
Us:”that is soooooo smart! We love this!”
Yah:”Uh…I am the Yah…I invented smart. You would not know what smart was if it were not for me. Now if you love me, keep my commands.”
I had a bank loan, it was a "covenant" with the lender to pay an amount every month, to live the loan according to the agreed upon terms. When the economy tanked, I fell farther and farther behind in the payments, until I had to give up the property. Fortunately for me, the bank was merciful (read this as “did not want my building in this economy”) and called me and said that they would forgive the past late payments, refinance the building at a lower interest rate, as long as I paid the back interest. The building is the same, the lender, the borrower, the length of the loan, everything is almost exactly the same, but it is still considered a NEW contract, covenant, agreement, with one small change, the interest rate, and the forgiveness of transgression, the past due amount, because I BROKE the old agreement. I could not pay it, not with the economy as it is. So my views are in line with my understanding of the Hebrews passage, the covenant has the same essence, but written on the hearts, and not on stone. I will bow out now before the usual fireworks regarding what has been fulfilled by the Messiah and is no longer required due to it being fulfilled, and what is still required due to not being fulfilled.
Please let us not go near the Sabbath or those arguments.
Paul not the apostle said:
Certainly it is ok, this topic was simply for us to engage in discussion, not to try to win a debate. I realize that we come from many different denominations and some here from none. I'd like to say I aprreciate your comment and it is as welcome as my own. Hope we see many different thoughts, I believe in the market place of ideas. I would like to clarify this, I do believe in plural marriage and pray to practice it soon. So, this post has nothing to do with that subject. Just what is the definition of old testament, that's it. I believe in plural marriage because patriarchy was established by creation order and practiced by the patriarchs, stamped and approved in "the Law" or old covenant and never changed in the new covenant. Such as dietary laws, animal sacrifice, temple procedures, etc. were. I do believe that "the Law" is still scripture but we must use it accordingly.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I agree with what you've said so far. While I believe it is important to properly understand the Old Testament Scriptures, many examples in the New Testament Scriptures demonstrate that, when it comes down to it, the New interprets the Old, and NEVER the other way around. For example, when Jesus quotes the Old Testament Scriptures and then tells us what it means, His interpretation is FINAL. The correct interpretation or understanding of His Word is whatever He says it is. It becomes absolutely comedic when some Believers try to twist Jesus' words around backwards in order to get His statements to align with their existing paradigm of an Old Testament passage.cbv3123 said:
I will go on record as saying the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are NOT the same covenant, nor is one an extension of the other, nor is the New Covenant merely a rehashing of the Old Covenant, nor is the "location" of the Covenant what is truly "new" about it. The New Testament Scriptures are simply too clear on this point. About the only thing the two Covenants have in common is they were both given by God Himself. Everyone is willing to claim Abraham as their father, but WHO IS THEIR MOTHER?? Hagar is NOT Sarah and the Mosaic Covenant is NOT the Messianic Covenant. They cannot be mixed. It's not the same old wine simply transplanted into a new wineskin.
I would be happy to demonstrate conclusively, from both the OT and NT Scriptures, how the entire Mosaic covenant has completely ended, but I know the banhammer will swing on this topic long before we get that far. Sacred cows and all that. But I assume that mere "opinion" without Scriptural evidence to back it up should be safe....for the time-being. :roll:
In His love,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
Have you seen a rainbow lately?
Robert
Robert
Tlaloc
Member
I'm going to re-iterate Todd, Old Testament is lay mans terms for Tanakh. What we call the Old Testament doesn't deal with any specific covenant or testament (though there are many covenants between God and Man recorded in it) Whatever one believes about the applicability of Mosaic law, nothing else in the 'OT' is changed or done away with (much of it is history, which does not change, or poetry and philosophy which need not change so long as it is true and beautiful) There is no use lumping the Prophets and the Writings with our disputes about the Law.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I agree, Tlaloc. Everything in Scripture is beneficial for us to read and understand, because it teaches us many things about God, His will, and His plans for us. The Torah is prominent in the Tanakh (OT) but they are not synonymous. I often get accused of duplicity for both studying and teaching from the old Torah (or Mosaic law or what-have-you), while insisting we New Covenant Believers have absolutely nothing to do with following those laws. For example, we all understand that a man can marry as many wives as he wants and can care for, and we can demonstrate this throughout the Tanakh (before, during and after the Mosaic law). It's just as important to know what applies to us (and what MUST NOT apply to us) as to know the truth.Tlaloc said:
Luke 16:16-17: "The Torah and the prophets WERE UNTIL YOHANAN. SINCE THEN the reign of Elohim is being announced, and everyone is doing violence upon it. And it is easier for the heaven and the earth to pass away than for one tittle of the Torah to fall."
John 12:31: "NOW is the judgment on this world, NOW the ruler of this world shall be cast out."
In His love,
David
faithfulfatherof9
New Member
Accountability? Accountable for what, and to Whom?
Just my opinion here, but it seems that we are faced with a lifelong challenge to learn to discern good from evil. God's laws give us the criteria to determine good from evil. When would God hold us accountable for knowing how to discern good from evil?
Probably when we agree to enter into a covenant of faith in His promise to bless those who obey His laws. There is much disagreement over what action or profession binds us to such a covenant. But the age at which we make that decision, that we believe in God, we believe His promises, and ar willing to live our lives in His service,..... THAT is the age at which we reached accountability.
The age at which we become accountable is different for all of us. And for some, they wont believe, understand, or repent of disobedience until they die, are resurrected, and stand before the Great Judge. I just pray that they will then realize the potential of everlasting life available for them if they will just believe, repent, and accept it. It would seem they would certainly have all the proof neccesary to believe at that point, as they look into The Word face to face.
In the end, I guess it would be up to God Himself to determine what errors or disobedience He is willing to overlook and forgive, and when He is going to forgive them,... or not. And it is up to Him to determine when we have reached that point of faith and belief that we decide to enter into a covenant of faith and become accountable for our words and deeds.
Aint it great that God gives us an opportunity of salvation from that lake of fire?
Paul
Just my opinion here, but it seems that we are faced with a lifelong challenge to learn to discern good from evil. God's laws give us the criteria to determine good from evil. When would God hold us accountable for knowing how to discern good from evil?
Probably when we agree to enter into a covenant of faith in His promise to bless those who obey His laws. There is much disagreement over what action or profession binds us to such a covenant. But the age at which we make that decision, that we believe in God, we believe His promises, and ar willing to live our lives in His service,..... THAT is the age at which we reached accountability.
The age at which we become accountable is different for all of us. And for some, they wont believe, understand, or repent of disobedience until they die, are resurrected, and stand before the Great Judge. I just pray that they will then realize the potential of everlasting life available for them if they will just believe, repent, and accept it. It would seem they would certainly have all the proof neccesary to believe at that point, as they look into The Word face to face.
In the end, I guess it would be up to God Himself to determine what errors or disobedience He is willing to overlook and forgive, and when He is going to forgive them,... or not. And it is up to Him to determine when we have reached that point of faith and belief that we decide to enter into a covenant of faith and become accountable for our words and deeds.
Aint it great that God gives us an opportunity of salvation from that lake of fire?
Paul
Yes, I have seen a rainbow lately. Last Friday, Paul & I saw a double rainbow (one over the other) in full completion from one end to the other. It was truly majestic. And yes, the rainbow that was a symbol of His promise to not destroy the Earth with another giant flood is still the symbol of His promise even though there is a new covenant. Those things have not been done away with just because there is a new covenant.
Cbv, you mentioned dietary laws (along with animal sacrifice, temple procedures, etc.) being changed in the new covenant. I'm not going into whether or not it is against Law to eat unclean meats, but I am going to say that I believe that those animals are unclean for a reason. All of the animals listed are the garbage disposals of the Earth and their digestive systems are not capable of removing all of the toxins that they should process in order for their meat to be healthy for us. They will eat ANYTHING including waste of other animals and their own waste. They are called unclean meats because they are not clean. They weren't called unlawful meats or forbidden meats. It's for OUR benefit to not eat those animals on a regular basis.
My point is that everything in the old is for our benefit in the new.
Cbv, you mentioned dietary laws (along with animal sacrifice, temple procedures, etc.) being changed in the new covenant. I'm not going into whether or not it is against Law to eat unclean meats, but I am going to say that I believe that those animals are unclean for a reason. All of the animals listed are the garbage disposals of the Earth and their digestive systems are not capable of removing all of the toxins that they should process in order for their meat to be healthy for us. They will eat ANYTHING including waste of other animals and their own waste. They are called unclean meats because they are not clean. They weren't called unlawful meats or forbidden meats. It's for OUR benefit to not eat those animals on a regular basis.
My point is that everything in the old is for our benefit in the new.
DeeAnn is correct about the rainbow.
The Covenant's of YHVH are "forever" -- even if men continue to break their part. The point of the rainbow is that - like "heaven and earth", which have not passed either, (Matthew 5:17-19) not one of His Covenant's have "passed away". Every time we see a rainbow, we should recall that He "changes NOT". (Malachi 3:6; although Hebrews 13:8 is another witness of that same Truth.)
That should be a great comfort to all of us here. It's good to know that He does NOT keep changing His mind, and changing His rules. The importance of this fact is outlined by the Savior at the end of John chapter 5:
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he Wrote about Me.
But if you do not believe his Writings, how will you believe My words?"
The Covenant's of YHVH are "forever" -- even if men continue to break their part. The point of the rainbow is that - like "heaven and earth", which have not passed either, (Matthew 5:17-19) not one of His Covenant's have "passed away". Every time we see a rainbow, we should recall that He "changes NOT". (Malachi 3:6; although Hebrews 13:8 is another witness of that same Truth.)
That should be a great comfort to all of us here. It's good to know that He does NOT keep changing His mind, and changing His rules. The importance of this fact is outlined by the Savior at the end of John chapter 5:
For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he Wrote about Me.
But if you do not believe his Writings, how will you believe My words?"
A
Anonymous
Guest
Paul not the apostle said:
Also check out Jer: 31:31-34
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Does not sound like we live in the times mentioned in these verses.
What scriptures was paul refering to in @ Tim 3:16 & 17
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
My two cents
Robert
A
Anonymous
Guest
Good analogy, Robert! The rainbow was the sign of the UNCONDITIONAL covenant given to Noah and every living creature. Nothing in Scripture says that this Noahic covenant would or has passed away. The Noahic covenant was not a CONDITIONAL covenant made with a specific people for a specific time and purpose, rather, it was made with all men throughout the ages.rms said:
In His love,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
rms said:
Well, it really doesn't matter whether it sounds like we live in the times mentioned in these verses, because Hebrews 8 spells it out quite clearly for us. The NEW interprets the OLD.
Hebrews 8:7-8a: "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says..."
He then goes on to quote Jeremiah 31 verbatim, proving that the covenant of Messiah is the very same covenant prophesied in Jeremiah. He then concludes with...
Hebrews 8:13: "By saying new, He has made the first old. Now what becomes old and growing aged is near disappearing."
Honestly, there is no way we can read the prophesy in Jeremiah 31 and the fulfillment in Hebrews 8 and not see that they both refer to the New Covenant.
In His love,
David
A
Anonymous
Guest
Excellent analysis! The Passover type was by the blood of lambs. The Passover anti-type was by the blood of the final Passover lamb, the lamb of God. The "type" brought God's people physical deliverance from slavery to Egypt by crossing through the Red Sea. The "anti-type" brought God's people spiritual deliverance from slavery to sin by the working of Messiah and His shed blood. Fifty days after the first Passover in Egypt, the Law was given to the nation of Israel, written on tablets of stone by the finger of God. Fifty days after the final Passover was sacrificed, the Law was given to the "Israel of God", written on their hearts by the Spirit of God.aphesis paraptoma said:
Unfortunately, most Believers stop the correlation right there.
Exactly how many years did they wander in the "wilderness", the exact time from the cutting of the covenant until the children of FAITH were allowed to enter into the land of promise. Notice how the wicked were severed from among the just and not allowed to enter into the land of temporal rest?
Matthew 21:33-40: "Hear another parable: There was a certain man, a householder who planted a vineyard and placed a hedge around it, and dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. And he leased it to farmers and went abroad. And when the season of the fruits drew near, he sent his servants to the farmers, to receive its fruit. And the farmers took his servants and beat one, and they killed one, and they stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. And at last he sent his son to them, saying, "They shall respect my son." But when the farmers saw the son, they said among themselves, "This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and let us possess his inheritance." And they took him, and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. Therefore, when the master of the vineyard comes, what shall he do to those farmers?"
Notice how the Pharisees answered Him...
Matthew 21:41-45: "They said to Him, "Evil ones! He shall bring them to evil destruction, and lease the vineyard to other farmers who shall give to him the fruits in their seasons." Yahushua said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief corner-stone. This was from Yahweh, and it is marvelous in our eyes"? Because of this I say to you: the reign of Elohim shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it. And he who falls on this stone shall be broken, but on whomever it falls, he shall be pulverized." And the chief priests and Pharisees, having heard His parables, knew that He was speaking of them."
This parable clearly teaches that the fulfillment of Passover, being the killing of the Son, would not bring a postponement of kingdom promises, but utter destruction upon fleshly Israel. The kingdom would be given to those other than national Israel; it would go to a fruitful spiritual Israel, the church. The "Israel of God". We see the "type" of Trumpets in Joshua 6, with the destruction of Jericho at the end of the forty year exodus. Seven priests, with the Ark of God in the midst, marched with seven trumpets around the wall of Jericho for six days. On the seventh day, they marched around seven times. At the close of the march, the trumpets were blown, the people shouted, and God caused the walls of Jericho to collapse. The victory was complete.
The events of Jericho offered a graphic image and actual prophecy of events at the close of the Jewish age, again exactly forty years after Pentecost, when there were seven angels with seven trumpets of doom and judgment:
Revelation 8:2: "And I saw the seven messengers who stand before Elohim, and to them were given seven trumpets."
At that time, the great and powerful city of Babylon (Jerusalem) suddenly fell:
Revelation 18:10: "standing at a distance for fear of her torture, saying, "Woe! Woe, the great city Babel, the mighty city, because your judgment has come in one hour!"
Accompanied by a great shouting in heaven:
Revelation 18:20: "Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you set-apart emissaries and prophets, for Elohim has completely avenged you on her!"
As in Joshua, the destruction of the city came at the sound of the trumpets, so at the end of the Jewish age, the destruction of Jerusalem came as Jesus sounded the trumpet. The wicked unbelieving Jews faced the wrath of God in Israel's fall. We see the "anti-type" of Trumpets in the fall of Jerusalem and the return of Messiah. At the blowing of shofar in Matthew 24, the scene was set and Messiah fulfilled the feast. Oh, and guess what month it was when Jerusalem's "heaven and earth" passed away?
Josephus, vol. 1, page 467: "The city was taken on September 8, A.D. 70, after the last siege had lasted about five months."
Good stuff, for those who can see it.
In His love,
David