> General Discussions
Jonah's Gourd
ericsteven:
Hi Joe,
Your conclusions about Mathias’s replacement of Judas all sound very well-thought out, but I take issue with a few of the things you said (and these are of course just my opinions):
--- Quote ---What I have found interesting is that perhaps this office of the 12th apostle belonging to Judas/Satan continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas.
--- End quote ---
Where in Scripture does it say that Satan ever held the office of apostle in the first place? Yes, Scripture says that Satan entered into Judas at a very specific point in time, but up until then, whether for good or ill, it was actually Judas himself that occupied that position as apostle. Satan did not enter Judas until the time had come for the betrayal.
Luke 22:3ff Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
In Revelation, the wall of the New Jerusalem is said to be built on twelve foundations in which are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (And yes, I understand this is not a literal wall.)
Revelation 21:14 and the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
I’m sure we can all agree that Judas’ name is not included in these foundations because he died before the Spirit was given, but are we to believe that Satan’s name is included in these foundations because that ‘office…continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas?’ I hope not.
Some may say that Paul was the true choice of God to fulfill those Scriptures, but nowhere is Paul referred to nor does Paul refer to himself as one of the twelve. In fact, Paul refers to the twelve as distinct from himself:
I Cor 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
Obviously Mathias was not officially chosen at this point, since he was not chosen until after the ascension, but since one of the requirements spoken by Peter was that the one chosen must have been present from the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry til His ascension, Paul could say without contradiction that He appeared to the twelve.
--- Quote ---What caught my attention was actually the lack of a directive from Jesus or Jesus Himself choosing a replacement during the 40 days He spent with His disciples after the resurrection, if this was a matter of supreme importance it is interesting that Jesus never addressed it.
--- End quote ---
We are told in John 21:25…
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Included in that statement, I would think, would be things that Jesus spoke as well. So there are obviously things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded for whatever reason that could have had a bearing on their understanding, but of which we will not know until we have the opportunity to ask Him/them ourselves.
That said, we DO know that Jesus opened up their understanding of the Scriptures after His resurrection concerning those things that must be fulfilled from the Law, the prophets and the psalms concerning Him.
Luke 24:44ff And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Now before anyone says that this was only those Scriptures concerning Jesus specifically, let me point out that the gospel writers quote several OT Scriptures having to do with the coming of John the Baptist in a way that they probably would not have known unless Jesus opened their understanding to them. So though they weren’t specifically speaking of Jesus, they concerned Jesus because John was the one who was to prepare the way for Him. In like manner, I’m sure Jesus would have opened up their understanding of the Scriptures concerning Judas and his replacement because obviously anything having to do with Judas as Jesus’ betrayer concerns Jesus.
Peter knew what those Scriptures now meant because Jesus opened up his understanding of them. Just because it is not recorded that Jesus did not tell them how they were to be fulfilled does not mean that He didn’t.
I guess I just do not understand why you don’t think Mathias was chosen by God. You say...
--- Quote ---No Man? Could this be saying this bishopric would be filled by another who is not a man and even Peter did not understand the full implication of this?
--- End quote ---
I believe that your focus on this word ‘man’ is misdirected. The Greek word for ‘man’ (anthrōpos) is not even used in that verse. The word is mē and is often translated as ‘not’ or ‘no’ or 'no one' and a few times as ‘none,’ depending on the translation. Here is how a couple of other translations cite that Scripture:
Acts 1:20 for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take. (YLT)
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the scroll of the Psalms, Let his domicile become desolate, And let no one be dwelling in it, and 'Let his supervision be taken by another.' (CLV)
If the word ‘man’ had been used in this verse, your statement could very well be accepted, but since it does not, I don’t see how you can use that as a point of logic to say that Satan, not being a man, was the one to fill Judas’ position. While I don’t think Satan is even in view in these verses, even if he was, he would definitely fall under the umbrella of ‘no one’ dwelling in Judas’ habitation, whatever one takes that to mean.
The truth is a man, Mathias, was placed in that position. To deny that he was chosen by the Lord, I think, is to deny that he was himself filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and that he stood with Peter and the other apostles before the men from every nation.
Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord (including Mathias who was chosen just before in the last chapter) in one place.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven (including Mathias, not Satan), raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words…
--- Quote ---Peter is/was well known for being impulsive and impatient, that he made this decision before actually being converted (at Pentecost) has made me rethink this traditional doctrine about this choosing of Matthias.
--- End quote ---
Yes, Peter was impulsive and impatient, there is no doubt. But why wouldn’t he, once he was filled with the Holy Spirit and gained the knowledge that, “Hey maybe Mathias wasn’t the fulfillment of that prophecy after all,” do something to try and rectify the situation? Whether or not one believes Peter was acting impulsively or not (which I don’t think he was in this instance), Jesus put His stamp of approval on Mathias when He sent the Holy Spirit on him as one of the twelve standing on the day of Pentecost.
--- Quote ---Peter was mistaken about the inclusion of the Gentiles (and other things) until he was corrected by His Spirit.
--- End quote ---
Again, if Peter was corrected about the inclusion of the Gentiles by the Spirit, why is it not recorded anywhere that he was corrected by the Spirit concerning his impulsiveness in regard to the choosing of Mathias? If Mathias was the wrong choice chosen by a faulty wisdom of men, then I would think the Scriptures would have more to say on the rectification of that mistake.
--- Quote ---It kind of struck me that it (Matthias' appointment) takes one's eyes off of the placement of "a devil" into the church from the very beginning, by the will of God!
--- End quote ---
Yes, the devil was in the church from the very beginning by the will of God, but not, I don't think, because he replaced or retained the office of Judas as the twelfth apostle. Here are 2 reasons that I can find.
1) He was cast out from his place in the heavens to the earth at the resurrection of Jesus.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Even Jesus referred as much to His disciples before His death:
John 14:30 I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;
Satan was coming into the world, but he had no power over Jesus because Jesus had already died to His flesh, and would, in a matter of hours, die in the flesh and be resurrected in glory three days later. The Accuser would have no more power in the heavens once Jesus took His place on the throne of God; his only task at that point would be to deceive the inhabitants of the earth, and deceive he has.
2) According to Scripture, Pentecost is a leavened feast.
Lev 23:16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.
Lev 23:17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.
The Israelites at Mount Sinai were not given the ability to want to hear the voice of God as He came down on the mountain in fire to give them His Law. They retreated from Him in fear and bade Moses to speak to them on God’s behalf. By doing so, they refused to move beyond their Passover understanding of whom God is (the blood on the doorpost) and move into their Pentecostal understanding (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).
In Acts, the ability to hear and accept the fire of God as it descended upon them as tongues of fire moved the believers into the Pentecostal understanding of who God is, but that understanding was still leavened by the hearts and traditions of men. In that way, the fulfillment of Pentecost in the first century was never designed of itself to manifest in their fullness the sons of God. The leaven must be exposed to the fire of God in order to get rid of it, and that is what we see happening to a very few since that day in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago. It is not until the last trump that the Tabernacles understanding of God comes upon the elect and they will experience the fullness of the Holy Spirit, when the leaven will have 100% been burned out of them and they will reign with Jesus in His kingdom. Unfortunately until then, the leaven has increased and will increase exponentially within the church, partly because Satan has been diligently at work deceiving mankind to follow and believe the leaven within their hearts, keeping them from truly wanting to hear and accept the fire of God which is the only way to burn out the leaven within them. A majority of the church, like the Israelites of old, are much more comfortable having someone else tell them what God is saying rather than go up the mountain, listen to God Himself and submit to His chastening fire.
So that is my take on what you’ve presented concerning Mathias. Hopefully I haven’t muddied the waters even more, and I look forward to hearing others’ take on it as well as the original topic of Jonah's gourd.
God bless,
Eric
hillsbororiver:
Hi Joe,
Hi Eric,
Your conclusions about Mathias’s replacement of Judas all sound very well-thought out, but I take issue with a few of the things you said (and these are of course just my opinions):
--- Quote ---What I have found interesting is that perhaps this office of the 12th apostle belonging to Judas/Satan continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas.
--- End quote ---
Where in Scripture does it say that Satan ever held the office of apostle in the first place? Yes, Scripture says that Satan entered into Judas at a very specific point in time, but up until then, whether for good or ill, it was actually Judas himself that occupied that position as apostle. Satan did not enter Judas until the time had come for the betrayal.
In John Chapter 6 we read of this exchange between Jesus and all His disciples including the 12.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Joh 6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
Joh 6:67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?
Joh 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
Joh 6:69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve and one of you is a devil?
Joh 6:71 He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Luke 22:3ff Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them.
We have the words of Christ testifying that one of His chosen is a devil way before Judas actually betrayed Him to the Chief Priests.
In Revelation, the wall of the New Jerusalem is said to be built on twelve foundations in which are the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. (And yes, I understand this is not a literal wall.)
Revelation 21:14 and the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
I’m sure we can all agree that Judas’ name is not included in these foundations because he died before the Spirit was given, but are we to believe that Satan’s name is included in these foundations because that ‘office…continued to be held by Satan after the death of Judas?’ I hope not.
No that is not what I am saying at all! I am speaking of the present earthly, church kingdom not the restored, spiritual Kingdom (yet to come) of heaven. This present kingdom, body of Christ church system is defiled with the doctrines of devils is spoken of in scripture as the Synagogue of Satan, as far as the 12 foundations in the spiritual wall of the city is God not capable of drawing His own 12th apostle, perhaps from one who may be alive at His return?
Some may say that Paul was the true choice of God to fulfill those Scriptures, but nowhere is Paul referred to nor does Paul refer to himself as one of the twelve. In fact, Paul refers to the twelve as distinct from himself:
I Cor 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
This is a whole other topic in regard to Paul who said he was of an untimely birth (1Cor 15:8), was he perhaps speaking of being born too early to be alive at the return of Christ even filling the 12th position?
Obviously Mathias was not officially chosen at this point, since he was not chosen until after the ascension, but since one of the requirements spoken by Peter was that the one chosen must have been present from the beginning of Jesus’ earthly ministry til His ascension, Paul could say without contradiction that He appeared to the twelve.
It may well be that Peter was using his own reasoning just as he did in regard to the Gentiles being excluded, Peter became a spiritual giant to be sure but he was not perfect or infallible, especially before Pentecost! We have the "requirements of Peter" not of the Lord.
Certainly, to the 12 as they were to themselves and the church and the Jews, but there is much that Paul did not reveal, in fact did not reveal in regard to his visions of seeing the "third heaven" and the things seen were "not lawful for a man to utter." In 2Cor 12 we have Paul speaking of himself in the 3rd person as well as comparing himself favorably to the "chief apostle."
--- Quote ---What caught my attention was actually the lack of a directive from Jesus or Jesus Himself choosing a replacement during the 40 days He spent with His disciples after the resurrection, if this was a matter of supreme importance it is interesting that Jesus never addressed it.
--- End quote ---
We are told in John 21:25…
John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
That could be used in any number of ways that could be misconstrued to suit virtually any supposition.
Included in that statement, I would think, would be things that Jesus spoke as well. So there are obviously things that Jesus said and did that were not recorded for whatever reason that could have had a bearing on their understanding, but of which we will not know until we have the opportunity to ask Him/them ourselves.
Very true, but to state that He definitively did a specific thing that was not recorded just because He could of or might of leans toward adding to the scriptures.
That said, we DO know that Jesus opened up their understanding of the Scriptures after His resurrection concerning those things that must be fulfilled from the Law, the prophets and the psalms concerning Him.
Certainly, but it was a beginning not the culmination of all spiritual wisdom, they knew virtually nothing before, during the ministry of Jesus they were as clueless as the multitudes regarding the parables.
Luke 24:44ff And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
Now before anyone says that this was only those Scriptures concerning Jesus specifically, let me point out that the gospel writers quote several OT Scriptures having to do with the coming of John the Baptist in a way that they probably would not have known unless Jesus opened their understanding to them. So though they weren’t specifically speaking of Jesus, they concerned Jesus because John was the one who was to prepare the way for Him.
As stated before this was a beginning for the apostles not the culmination of all scriptural knowledge and wisdom, as we read through the Acts of the Apostles it becomes clear very quickly that they were in a learning process.
In like manner, I’m sure Jesus would have opened up their understanding of the Scriptures concerning Judas and his replacement because obviously anything having to do with Judas as Jesus’ betrayer concerns Jesus.
Pure speculation, if replacing him was imperative why wasn't this done during the 40 days Jesus was with the disciples, He personally chose the others (including Judas) not by drawing lots but from knowing the will of His Father, that Peter chose Matthias does not make it automatically a legitimate appointment, perhaps Christ had everything in place just as it was and it was a presumptuous act for Peter and the rest to choose another at that moment, was it not intended by God for the earthly kingdom to become defiled, to morph into the Synagogue of Satan?
Peter knew what those Scriptures now meant because Jesus opened up his understanding of them. Just because it is not recorded that Jesus did not tell them how they were to be fulfilled does not mean that He didn’t.
And conversely it does not mean He did, Peter did not have perfect wisdom at that point, he was not even converted yet, this was before Pentecost. The apostles were still fearful, timid and unsure it was not until Pentecost that they displayed the wisdom and power of the Holy Spirit.
I guess I just do not understand why you don’t think Mathias was chosen by God.
He may very well have been chosen by God but not as an apostle but to be used for the delusion that the church was to experience, maybe one of the things Jesus said that is not recorded is that Satan will infiltrate the church and will defile this earthly christian kingdom as he defiled the Garden, the Exodus and everywhere else he has been allowed to operate. Maybe Jesus revealed this to them maybe He did not but either way we know that Satan was given authority to not only deceive but to take over the church.
In a previous post in the thread from LOF Part 10;
THE FOLLOWING FOR MATURE READERS ONLY
I stated that Satan has his part in the spiritual salvation of mankind. When God created our first parents in the Garden of Eden—Satan was there. When God called out the nation of Israel—Satan was there. When God wanted to test Job, one of the most perfect and righteous men who have ever lived—Satan was there. Whenever God chose to show mercy rather than condemnation on His people—Satan was there. When our Lord was being tested in the wilderness in preparation for His ministry—Satan was there. When Jesus chose Peter to possess the keys to the kingdom of God—Satan was there. Wherever God’s true gospel is preached in the world—Satan was there. Whenever God first shines the light of His Truth in man’s heaven—Satan was there. When God wanted to Sacrifice His Son for the sins of the world—Satan was there. When Ananias and Sapphira lied to God’s Holy Spirit—Satan was there. When Paul needed assistance in correcting a fornicator and a blasphemer—Satan was there. Whenever saints are tempted to disobey—Satan was there. When Paul himself was in danger of being lifted up because of transcendent spiritual revelations—Satan was there. Whenever, even the saints are fooled by great power and lying signs and wonders—Satan is there. When we look for the source of all the lying deception of the whole world—again, Satan is there.
You say...
--- Quote ---No Man? Could this be saying this bishopric would be filled by another who is not a man and even Peter did not understand the full implication of this?
--- End quote ---
I believe that your focus on this word ‘man’ is misdirected. The Greek word for ‘man’ (anthrōpos) is not even used in that verse. The word is mē and is often translated as ‘not’ or ‘no’ or 'no one' and a few times as ‘none,’ depending on the translation. Here is how a couple of other translations cite that Scripture:
Acts 1:20 for it hath been written in the book of Psalms: Let his lodging-place become desolate, and let no one be dwelling in it, and his oversight let another take. (YLT)
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the scroll of the Psalms, Let his domicile become desolate, And let no one be dwelling in it, and 'Let his supervision be taken by another.' (CLV)
If the word ‘man’ had been used in this verse, your statement could very well be accepted, but since it does not, I don’t see how you can use that as a point of logic to say that Satan, not being a man, was the one to fill Judas’ position. While I don’t think Satan is even in view in these verses, even if he was, he would definitely fall under the umbrella of ‘no one’ dwelling in Judas’ habitation, whatever one takes that to mean.
Eric I believe you are splitting hairs here as the word "man" (G2077) comes from estō estōsan (second person singular present imperative and third person of G1510; be thou; let them be: - be). Man or person is there any way Satan can be considered a "person" could this word include those in the spirit realm?
The truth is a man, Mathias, was placed in that position. To deny that he was chosen by the Lord, I think, is to deny that he was himself filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and that he stood with Peter and the other apostles before the men from every nation.
I don't catagorically deny it but you have little to no evidence he did anything noteworthy at all, Matthias is not mentioned again Yes, Matthias was placed there but we have no scriptural authority that it was God who chose him as an apostle, Peter and the others made other "choices" or selections in regard to the ministry that did not work out as they had hoped or thought. There were about 3000 who were filled with the Spirit on Pentecost, I think we both would agree they were not all apostles.
Acts 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord (including Mathias who was chosen just before in the last chapter) in one place.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven (including Mathias, not Satan), raised his voice and said to them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words…
--- Quote ---Peter is/was well known for being impulsive and impatient, that he made this decision before actually being converted (at Pentecost) has made me rethink this traditional doctrine about this choosing of Matthias.
--- End quote ---
Yes, Peter was impulsive and impatient, there is no doubt. But why wouldn’t he, once he was filled with the Holy Spirit and gained the knowledge that, “Hey maybe Mathias wasn’t the fulfillment of that prophecy after all,” do something to try and rectify the situation? Whether or not one believes Peter was acting impulsively or not (which I don’t think he was in this instance), Jesus put His stamp of approval on Mathias when He sent the Holy Spirit on him as one of the twelve standing on the day of Pentecost.
I believe I answered this above, 3000 were filled with the Spirit at that time and Matthias could have been part of the "strong delusion" sent to the earthly church, keeping their eyes off of Satan and what he was going to be allowed to do, it may or may not have been with the knowledge (at least at that time) of the other apostles
Another presumption as they were increased with knowledge but not perfected in knowledge and spirit, if they were so bold and infallible from Pentecost forward what about the fear of Saul after the stoning of Stephen?
--- Quote ---Peter was mistaken about the inclusion of the Gentiles (and other things) until he was corrected by His Spirit.
--- End quote ---
Again, if Peter was corrected about the inclusion of the Gentiles by the Spirit, why is it not recorded anywhere that he was corrected by the Spirit concerning his impulsiveness in regard to the choosing of Mathias? If Mathias was the wrong choice chosen by a faulty wisdom of men, then I would think the Scriptures would have more to say on the rectification of that mistake.
You really do not understand the point of this at all, let me restate it as succinctly as possible;
Jesus knowingly chose "a devil." What happened when Judas died? Did Satan go away or did he continue in the ministry and church albeit as an adversary of truth disguised as an angel of light. This was all laid out from the very beginning where the church would become the Synagogue of Satan and a chosen or elect group would be called out of Satan's church.
Even though I believe that Matthias is not truly an apostle I am not denying he was placed where he was by God but not for the same reason Peter and the others thought at the time, perhaps Jesus laid out what was to become of the church with all the details and how it would unfold including how Matthias would be a decoy for the real apostle of the earthly kingdom, the one who inspires it's greed, lies and deception.
Satan was chosen by God to do a work in the church, Matthias was chosen by lot by men.
--- Quote ---It kind of struck me that it (Matthias' appointment) takes one's eyes off of the placement of "a devil" into the church from the very beginning, by the will of God!
--- End quote ---
Yes, the devil was in the church from the very beginning by the will of God, but not, I don't think, because he replaced or retained the office of Judas as the twelfth apostle. Here are 2 reasons that I can find.
1) He was cast out from his place in the heavens to the earth at the resurrection of Jesus.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Even Jesus referred as much to His disciples before His death:
John 14:30 I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;
How does that relate to anything, where was Satan when he tempted Jesus or tempted or tormented anyone?
Satan was coming into the world, but he had no power over Jesus because Jesus had already died to His flesh, and would, in a matter of hours, die in the flesh and be resurrected in glory three days later. The Accuser would have no more power in the heavens once Jesus took His place on the throne of God; his only task at that point would be to deceive the inhabitants of the earth, and deceive he has.
We are in total agreement here! ;)
The following is a whole different topic, worthy of another thread, I am familiar with some of the differences between Pentecost and Passover, leaven and unleavened bread, wheat, barley, etc. Start a topic in regard to this and I would be more than happy to participate.
Peace to you and thanks for you comments, critique and participation Brother,
Joe
hillsbororiver:
Hi Eric, I had to cut this out and put it here as my last post exceeded the maximum,
2) According to Scripture, Pentecost is a leavened feast.
Lev 23:16 Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD.
Lev 23:17 Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth deals: they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baken with leaven; they are the firstfruits unto the LORD.
The Israelites at Mount Sinai were not given the ability to want to hear the voice of God as He came down on the mountain in fire to give them His Law. They retreated from Him in fear and bade Moses to speak to them on God’s behalf. By doing so, they refused to move beyond their Passover understanding of whom God is (the blood on the doorpost) and move into their Pentecostal understanding (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit).
In Acts, the ability to hear and accept the fire of God as it descended upon them as tongues of fire moved the believers into the Pentecostal understanding of who God is, but that understanding was still leavened by the hearts and traditions of men. In that way, the fulfillment of Pentecost in the first century was never designed of itself to manifest in their fullness the sons of God. The leaven must be exposed to the fire of God in order to get rid of it, and that is what we see happening to a very few since that day in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago. It is not until the last trump that the Tabernacles understanding of God comes upon the elect and they will experience the fullness of the Holy Spirit, when the leaven will have 100% been burned out of them and they will reign with Jesus in His kingdom. Unfortunately until then, the leaven has increased and will increase exponentially within the church, partly because Satan has been diligently at work deceiving mankind to follow and believe the leaven within their hearts, keeping them from truly wanting to hear and accept the fire of God which is the only way to burn out the leaven within them. A majority of the church, like the Israelites of old, are much more comfortable having someone else tell them what God is saying rather than go up the mountain, listen to God Himself and submit to His chastening fire.
So that is my take on what you’ve presented concerning Mathias. Hopefully I haven’t muddied the waters even more, and I look forward to hearing others’ take on it as well as the original topic of Jonah's gourd.
God bless,
Eric
Beloved:
I said in a previous post about the meaning of ... the sign of Jonah that the
Jesus denounces the people who are seeking a sign and saying to only sign that will be given to them is the sign of Jonah, ....is it being in the belly of the fish or ....that the foreigners and outsiders repented at the word while they, the current insiders, were not repenting.
Today I see a more universal theme and Jonah himself pointed it out
(Jon 4:2) And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
Now isn't this is a recurrent theme of the throughout the entire Scriptures
This magnificent declaration was first uttered by God to Moses. The problem is that Jonah objects to it as applying to others. He speaks powerful and well-worn words, but he thoroughly disapproves of their being true for just anybody.
Exo 34:6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, God said it directly to Moses
Deu 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations Moses says it to the people
Neh 9:17 And refused to obey, neither were mindful of thy wonders that thou didst among them; but hardened their necks, and in their rebellion appointed a captain to return to their bondage: but thou art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and forsookest them not Nehemiah says it
Psa 86:15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth.
Psa 103:8 The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.
Psa 145:8 The LORD is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy David says it in multiple ways
Joe 2:13 And rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the LORD your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil. Joel
ete etc etc
Jonah representative of all those people who profess their belief in God, the compassionate creator of all humankind, but who deny their own compassion to those of God's creatures that are outside their own group.
The most thoroughgoing rejection of God's will often takes place in people who observe a certain form of piety and in their own minds and count themselves believers
When the story ends , do we know what happened to Jonah? Did he remain in his hardness of heart? How could he resist so gracious a God? Was he touched by divine compassion, so that compassion was kindled in his own heart? We are never told!
What does this mean to any of us? Do any of us resist this loving, gracious God? Will we finally turn out to be like Jonah or the God of Jonah?
What kind of God is this who listens to the suicidal elegy of His prophet who can't even remember what he himself said to God: "I will sacrifice to thee with thanksgiving, my vows I will pay."
Why does God allow all this madness to vent itself upon His own heart and why does He swallow up this all this poor behavior?
He is the God of love, who loves us with an everlasting love. Even a God who loves the Jonahs of this world.
Jonah was no minor prophet...he was probably more successful in preaching than Isaiah or Jeremiah...look at the breathtaking response of the Ninevites ...wow this would even put today's telelvagialists to shame.
Jonah was sent on this particular journey because ..Jonah has something to learn,....
Jonah was inspired to write this book because most of us need to learn the same lesson.
beloved
hillsbororiver:
Hi Carol,
Actually I have come to see there really is no such thing as a "minor prophet" as some of these shorter, less known Books are chock full of wisdom, prophecy, etc. I should have put a ;) wink by my statement.
--- Quote from: hillsbororiver on November 16, 2008, 11:04:24 AM ---
There is so much going on in these 4 short chapters by a minor prophet.......
--- End quote ---
I believe your quote below reflects the "scholarly" conventional wisdom used in commentaries and such as they divide (especially OT) writers into these major/minor catagories that don't really reflect the profound words contained within all scripture. Knowing your approach to study I am sure you don't believe any of His Words are "minor" no matter who was chosen to record them.
--- Quote from: Beloved on November 15, 2008, 12:54:53 AM ---
He is not a major prophet but a minor and he is also mentioned in 2 Kings.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Beloved on November 19, 2008, 02:21:06 AM ---
Jonah was no minor prophet...he was probably more successful in preaching than Isaiah or Jeremiah...look at the breathtaking response of the Ninevites ...wow this would even put today's telelvagialists to shame.
--- End quote ---
I totally agree with that sentiment!
--- Quote from: Beloved on November 19, 2008, 02:21:06 AM ---
Today I see a more universal theme and Jonah himself pointed it out
(Jon 4:2) And he prayed unto the LORD, and said, I pray thee, O LORD, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.
Now isn't this is a recurrent theme of the throughout the entire Scriptures
This magnificent declaration was first uttered by God to Moses. The problem is that Jonah objects to it as applying to others. He speaks powerful and well-worn words, but he thoroughly disapproves of their being true for just anybody.
--- End quote ---
Yes! This has been a consistant theme all through scripture up to this very day, it was there with the Jews, in the church and unfortunately even with some who believe in UR who salivate at the prospect of some Christians having to endure torment and suffering in the Lake Of Fire.
Excellent post (as usual)!
There is more I would like to comment on but I have to run to a meeting.
Peace,
Joe
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version