Add/remove tags to this thread

Topic: 9) Transferral

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Status: Offline
Posts: 939

9) Transferral


David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (11)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

T R A N S F E R R A L :

"The Kingdom of God is expressly covenanted to the seed of Abraham (but to the faithful obedient seed); now how can the covenanted promises respecting the Kingdom in this line be carried out into realization when the nation embracing that seed is rejected?...Can the nation or people who are to specially receive what the Jewish nation then lost by its non-repentance, obtain it without any reference to the Abrahamic And Davidic Covenants, i.e. without, in some way, becoming, by adoption, or engrafting, or incorporation, the seed of Abraham? Remember that God confirmed his promises by oath, and that He is faithful - not given to variableness or change - and, therefore, unless these questions can be satisfactorily and consistently answered, so that the promise still runs in the covenanted Abrahamic line, there would be a sad and unwarranted deficiency somewhere." (Vol 1, pg 387)

There is one last, great link in the Theocratic Chain that must be understood and so I include it in this series and that is the Transferral of the Kingdom (Mt 21:43) to "Another Nation."

Since the offer of the restoration of the Kingdom in the person of Y'shua was rejected by the southern nation of Judah (1 K 11:11-13, 29-37; 13:16-24), the need remained to transfer it to this other northern nation of Ephraim (Ez 23; 35:10; 37:22; Zech 11:7; Mt 21:28; Lk 22:38; John 10:16 etc), that would "bring forth the fruits thereof" which is an obvious reference to the preaching of the Gospel and harvesting souls for the Kingdom during this current Church Stewardship (dispensation if you prefer). This then kept the Election intact and engrafted Gentile believers, not into the Jewish Nation (Judah), but into the Northern Nation of Ephraim (Vol 2, pg 64 for his teaching on the Ten Lost tribes, which he never quite connected to this other nation).

This adoption of Gentiles was provided for in all three covenants, specifically as the "stranger" that gave up all to be part of this covenanted nation - Ruth the classic example. Before we get to the proof on this, it must be pointed out, that before Judah can, as a Nation (Zech 12, Jer 31 etc) receive this New Covenant, with its resultant restoration of the Theocracy, the Kingdom must be transferred back to them, as I have stated in previous posts (see Hos 4:6 etc).

This is clearly seen in Y'shua's application of Is 8:14 to himself (Lk 7:23 "offended" should read "stumble over"), and by the Apostles (1 Pet 2:28, Rom 9:32).

The significance is that "both houses [nations] of Israel" shall stumble over this stone. Now, Judah stumbled over him at the first advent, so when did Ephraim stumble over him (as a nation)?

Keep in mind that Y'air Davidy ("The Israelite Origins of Western Peoples") proved that the Magi that honored him at his birth, and the King of Parthia (same nation as the Magi), who acknowledged him as the rightful King of Israel (an ancient source says the King sent a letter to Y'shua telling him that if the Jews wouldn't have him, then to come on over and set up shop in Parthia) were actually a large portion of the Ten Lost Tribes who the Assyrians had placed between themselves and the Persians in a "buffer zone" (their modus operandi), and that over time these people gained control and rose to power (who else among the Gentiles would thus honor a Jewish King?).

Thus, at no time in the past has Ephraim as a nation stumbled over him as their rightful King (Vol 2 pg 91). In fact, Peter states just the opposite (1 Pet 2:6-10); that the nation was again "the people of God."

It would do well to ponder James' words in Acts 15:16 where "after this" is referring, in context, to this preaching of the New Covenant by Ephraim to the Gentiles. Keep in mind that James was now the Crown Prince of this Theocratic Kingdom, from an earthly standpoint.

It is extremely ominous that he quotes from the prophet to the Northern Nation (Amos 9:11) and from a passage that details the judgment on them because of this rejection at the Pretrib Rapture (vs 9:8-10).

Here I need to add that, since Ephraim went into exile in 740 BC, the Mosaic Covenant was suspended in their lives, i.e., as "wanderers among the nations" they were "divorced" from the same till the time that they received the New Covenant Nationally. Because of their divorce, they received neither the Blessings or the Curses from the Mos. Cov. which resulted in them loosing their National identity as well, and this is how God chose, in His sublime wisdom, to keep this nation hidden in the world while maintaining their bloodline (as opposed to Judah who have received both blessings and curses at various times and have always maintained their identity because of this).

Thus, when they received the New Covenant (Hos 1:10, and 1 Pet 2:10), they continued under it solely until such a time as (1) They enter their promised land (2 Sam 7:10 - which is not the land of Israel because they were already settled there; this is their second land grant that they are entitled to as firstborn; notice Hos 6:1-2 two of the Lord's Days is 2,000 yrs thus 1776 was "the third day" from their original exile), and (2) They reconfirm the Mosaic Covenant, Nationally, in some way (which many believe was fulfilled in this "Christian" "In God We Trust" "Nation").

This, however, would not be the restoration of the Theocracy proper, but the restoration of Ephraim as "The Northern Nation" as a Nation in their own land (just as they existed after the break away from Judah 1 K 13), in preparation (Vol 1, pg 587) for the re-establishment of the Theocracy, with revived Priesthood and House of David in the Land of Israel.

"Thus e.g. consider what Jesus said to the Jews (Mt 23:37-39; Lk 13:34-35), respecting his leaving their house desolate until a certain period elapsed...and until the predicted time (as e.g. Zech 12:9-14; Joel 3 etc), of their repentance and willingness to receive the Messiah. This "house" receives singular treatment at the hands of those who overlook the postponement of the Kingdom. Forgetting how this word is used in the Davidic Covenant and by the prophets, we have a variety of significations given, which are not in accordance with the covenants, or the prophets, or the facts as they existed when Jesus spoke...history shows that the Temple (as indicated by Mark 13:1,2 etc), by the additions made by Herod, was a splendid edifice, while the City and Land were far from being desolate. The same history, however, informs us what was desolate and remained desolate, viz.: the Davidic Kingdom which was overthrown, - the Davidic Tabernacle which was fallen down, - for the Jewish Nation, instead of having their former covenanted Theocratic-Davidic Kingdom, were under the rulership of the Roman Emperors. This corresponds precisely with what David himself predicted, Ps 89:38-45. Let the careful student but reflect: If Jesus came to fulfill the prophets, he will use the word "house" as they employed it, and especially as it was given in the covenant. This he did, taking the word to denote the fallen Davidic House or Kingdom, which was indeed "desolate" for a long time, and, being left by him in that state, continues so to the present day." (Vol 1, pg 628)

Now the need for this continuity in the covenant chain, other than being enforced by the precedent established in ordination ceremonies under the Mosaic Economy, and the fact that Peters didn't quite hit the Bullseye on this (Vol 1, pg 409 where he makes the Church this other nation), is pertinently seen in a comparison of two of his propositions (61 and 62) where the Kingdom "is now" (present tense) given to this other Nation and then he says in the next proposition that this people "becomes the elect nation" (future tense). To some this may be a minor technicality, but one must remember one other minor technicality and that is that now our salvation is hanging in the balance (instead of on "nails fastened by the Masters of the Assemblies which are given by one Shepherd" - Ec 12:10) on these points. The Kingdom can not be given to a nation that does not yet exist, nor can, subsequently, that non-existent nation bring forth any fruits.

This harvesting the author does not specifically address, as it has been fulfilled by the Apostles and Church ("the first fruits of Asia" etc). This point alone destroys his view (prop 65) that the Kingdom is given to them (the Church) at "the gathering of the elect" at the Second Advent, for the fruits were already being gathered, and thus, the other nation, as a nation, must have already been in existence in 30 AD and received the New Covenant. I remind you that, technically, the twelve Apostles were all from north Israel (for a reason) excepting Judas, and were commissioned to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" which includes the northern nation (thus typifying the 144,000 in the trib). He tries to sidestep this issue (prop 65 obs 9), but unsuccessfully; which itself supports the need for this continuity in the Covenant Chain that this great scholar of the Word intuitively felt was missing from his own chain; for, though God may "call the things that are naught as if they were" the Divine continuity has always existed in its realization in real time in the world of men - necessarily so. Thus, this link from Judah to Ephraim with the subsequent harvesting of the Gentiles, is established and maintained through the New Covenant itself, while the other three covenants are held "in abeyance."

That it is maintained on a national basis can be proven, conclusively, by the process of engrafting, which Paul, drawing from our Saviour's own typology (Acts 9:5 where "pricks" are grafted branches), expounds in Romans 9-11.

"This Kingdom of God is given, not to nations, but to one nation. This is distinctly stated, "a nation" Mt 21:43. It necessarily follows from our Scriptural propositions, and corroborates them. It is a logical sequence from the premises laid down. For, so long as one nation is chosen from among all others, and the Kingdom is covenanted by oath to that Nation, it is impossible for other nations,in their national capacity to be thus elected. It would be a violating of the most solemnly given promises and assurances." (Vol 1 pg 392)

The author breaks the force of his own statement above by, subsequently, rendering this "nation" that thus receives "the Kingdom" into "a people" (The Church) at the gathering at the end of the trib, which leaves them with no national capacity at the time of the transferral.

"The Kingdom is promised to the natural believing descendants of Abraham, and as the nation, then existing when the Kingdom was offered [emphasis mine], refused to repent in order to receive it, God must now - to carry out His purpose - raise up a nation unto Abraham, i.e. a nation in some way still related to him...the importance, therefore, of tracing His chosen nation [the Church], and ascertaining how it becomes - to insure covenanted relationship - incorporated with the elect nation, the Abrahamic people, can not be overestimated. Upon this largely depends our estimation of the covenants, the faithfulness of God, the continued election of the Jewish Nation [the remnant Rom 11:5], the design of the Church, the nature of the Kingdom, and the Inspiration and Unity of the Word." (Vol 1, pg 392)

So, the question now is, how can God engraft the believing Gentiles branches into the place where the non-believing Jewish branches were cut off if that nation was rejected, and with it, presumably, the covenants of promise? Peters tries to answer this question by saying that "the root" that they are engrafted into was the covenants themselves and their "personal interest" in them (Vol 1 pg 397), but his answer is placed in doubt by his own words.

"Both elect are the seed, the children of Abraham; both sets of branches are on the same stock, on the same root, on the same Olive Tree; both constitute the same Israel of God, the members of the same body, fellow citizens of the same commonwealth...forming the same "peculiar people," "Holy Nation," and "Royal Priesthood." (Vol 1 pg 404)

Thus, it is obvious that the root is not referring to a covenant but to a person (Judah and/or Ephraim) in a National capacity at the time of the reception of the New Covenant which is, really, the only reason for the Lord to chose out twelve Apostles.

That the root is a person or a group thereof, and not the covenants themselves, can be gained from the context of the passage in three particulars. Firstly (vs 16) the root is compared with "the firstfruits" which, obviously, as used elsewhere in Scripture (Rom 8:23, 16:5, 1 Cor 15:20-23, 16:15, Jam 1:18, Rev 14:4), is referring to a group of people, which is further clarified by the "lump" being Holy, which is a reference to bread, which also is symbolic of people (Lev 23:17 compare with 1 Sam 10:4, Lev 24:5, Mt 13:33 etc) and it would be the leaven (symbolic of doctrine - good or bad - Mt 16:12) which would symbolize the covenants, and not the firstfruits.

Secondly, these Gentile branches had been cut off of a "Wild Olive Tree", which is referring to Gentile nations, none of which have a covenanted relationship with God, thus, the root would not be referring to a covenant but to the origins of the nation.

And finally, the branches that are cut off are still "beloved for the fathers' sake" not for the covenants sake. The root, then, of the Olive Tree is referring to the Patriarchs (Heb 11) and not specifically the covenants with them. The fathers are the root that is rooted in the covenants (Ps 80:9) and a further study of the use of this symbol in Scripture will be conclusive (Is 11:10, 14:10, Ez 31:7, Hos 9:16, Mal 4:1, Mt 13:6, Rom 15:12, Rev 5:5, 22:16 etc).

The fact that the Patriarchs became "an Holy Nation" shows us that, taken with the entire context in Rom 11, the root is, in fact, the commonwealth of Israel and further that, in order for the Gentiles to be grafted into this root, this nation, this commonwealth, when the southern nation was cut off, this other nation already in the covenanted line must have been a nation at that time (via descendency from Abraham and reception of Y'shua as their national Messiah), in order to transfer the Kingdom to them, from Judah, exactly as it will be when transferred back to Judah as prophesied (Vol 1 pg 600). Therefore, this nation is not the Church but can only be the nation of Ephraim.

That this is assuredly the case can be proven also from the "parable" of the Barren Woman and the Married Wife (Is 54), of which Peters says, "Surely, if ever fancy or imagination has had full play in exegesis, it has been on this Scripture." (Vol 2 pg 130)

However, his own attempt only confuses the passage and the women involved, as a comparison with Gal 4:26-27 proves. For, Paul makes the Jerusalem above the Barren Woman, and the earthly Jerusalem the Married Wife (under the Mosaic economy). Peters feels this inconsistency in his own view (just the opposite of Paul's) by saying that Paul "looked in faith" to the Married Wife and his inheritance, and further by emphasizing the interpretation by the "general analogy" as opposed by the immediate context. Both are necessary, and the correct understanding of the immediate context should then be understood as to how it relates to the broader general analogy of Scripture.

The confusion is simply due to the lack of understanding that these two women are two nations - Ephraim and Judah (Ez 23 proves this). Judah was never divorced (Jer 3 and Is 49 where the question about the bill of divorcement is to emphasize the fact that Judah was never given one - Vol 2 pg 133), but Ephraim was divorced (Jer 3 - the two sisters again, vs 8 specifies Ephraim's divorce, see also Hos 1:9-10, 2:2 etc). Thus, the northern nation of Ephraim is this Barren Woman (which Peters shows is a reference to a people whose land has been laid desolate as was Ephraim's by the Assyrians prior to the time of Isaiah's writing), who is to bring forth more children than the Married Wife (could not this be a specific reference by our Lord to "the other nation" and this very passage?), or the southern nation of Judah.

This, in context, is referring to the preaching of the Gospel of the New Covenant and thus "Bringing forth the fruit thereof." The chapter previous (53) is, of course, the Theocratic Sacrifice of Y'shua, then this Barren Women becomes remarried here in chapter 54 under the New Everlasting Covenant (vs 13 compare Jer 31:34 and 3:12-14 and Ez 16:60), which is described in the very next chapter (55) as "the sure mercies of David." The children (fruits) here referred to, would thus be the "Children" of Gal 4 or the engrafted Gentiles under this New Covenant. But Judah also will receive this everlasting covenant (Jer 30-33, Ez 16) and also Ephraim will be brought back under "the rod" of the Mosaic Covenant (Ez 20:33-38 probably specifically those of the nation that relocate to the promised land as I don't think the nation of Ephraim in its entirety will), I would guess, as a result of their rejection of Y'shua Messiah in some way ("My Lord delays his return"?), and thereby stumbling over him. This will then, subsequently, require the stumbling stone to be taken out of the way (Is 57 by putting it back in its proper place as the cornerstone) of both Judah and Ephraim during the trib (note the stranger of chapter 56 is the Male Child of Rev 12 and the Leader here in 55:4; and the eunuchs of chapter 56 are the 144,000 - these two will be instrumental in this work, especially helping Ephraim recognize his true ancestry), which is described in the next chapters (58-59) and into the Millennium (60). Not only does this view clear up any contradictions between Peters and Paul, but it brings a unity to this section of Isaiah, which should lead to a greater understanding of the book as a whole.

Both of these women are further symbolized by the story in 1 K 13, where only the wisdom of Solomon could tell them apart. The first woman was lying. Her child (type of Y'shua) was born, then three (of the Lord's) days later the other (male child of the apocalypse) was born ("the crown of the head of him that was separated from his brethren" Gen 49:26).

Then, the first woman "smothered" her child (crucifixion leads to asphyxiation), but craftily left him in her own bed and then accused the other woman (who represents Ephraim - notice both these women are called harlots as both nations committed adultery against God by worshiping idols), of killing her own child ("The same judgment you judge other with you are guilty of yourself"), and switching them.

Subsequently, the kid was just about torn in two (Ez 37) and threatened with the Sword of Judgment (Dan 11:22, Ps 116 etc).

And, I will add, that these same two women are assuredly the two women of Zech 5 that take a third woman back to Babylon to "build it a house on its own base" (Rev 17-18), which preview was just seen on the sixth day of the sixth month (Sept 3rd) of this year and their "war on terrorism" when, for the first time in 2500 years, Babylon made the International News.

And, that leads to the obvious conclusion that these three women are also the three sisters of Ez 16 (where the Return of Sodom is symbolical of the endtimes return of Babylon - Vol 2 pg 82). This is strengthened by the judgments of Edom (where Sodom was) and Babylon (Jer 49:17-21, 50:40-46) using the exact word-for-word typology (poor of the flock, noise of the fall etc) and comparing both to Sodom (49:18, 50:40).

All of this, now, can be further supported by the transferral of "the keys" of the Kingdom to Peter. When taken together: "I will give the Kingdom to another nation" and "It is the Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom" and "I give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom" shows that an actual transferral of Kingdom Authority occurred, and thus "The Kingdom" was transferred from the Nation of Judah to the Nation of Ephraim via Peter, the Apostles and the New Covenant.

I feel the need to state here that in the transferral back to Judah, in preparation for the restoration of the Theocracy, and the re-unification of the two nations (Ez 37), that God ordains the 144,000 who are responsible for the salvation of "The Great Multitude." For any of them that might read this; in reference to conversions (Rev 12:17, 14:13 etc) and a public demonstration of the same, due to the nature of the case, I would assume that any Christians left behind (and there will be plenty in America and Europe) would need to be re-baptized under your authority (1 Pet 3:21), having been cut off from the body ("true vine" John 15:6) of Messiah. They, and actually yourselves and any Gentiles saved during the trib, are no longer part (specifically) of the Bride, but are now "children of the Bride chamber" (or as I like to call it, Children of the Kingdom), as far as I can tell. If any reject, and since Paul compared our baptism with Y'shua to that of the Israelites to Moses (1Cor 10:1-12), remind them that 40 yrs later the people were baptized unto Joshua when they crossed the Jordan and entered the promised land (Josh 3).

As far as communion; you will still be offering it to any new coverts, but for left-behind Christians, I really don't think any of us can make a change to that ordinance without Y'shua's direct command. The problem may occur that some might (in their conscience) consider that they are re-crucifying Messiah. A possible modification may be to use water (John 19:34 and compare other verses that combine "bread and water" in the Word - there are more than you might think). But, perhaps, the best would be for them to abstain from "the fruit of the vine" until they can drink it "anew" in the Kingdom with Y'shua (which some have stated may be a reference to the vow of a Nazarite - Num 6).

The transferral of the Kingdom to Ephraim specifically for the purpose of "bringing forth the fruit thereof" is the whole purpose for the two parables of the two sons (Mt 21:28 and Lk 15:11). In Matthew, a certain man (God the Father) had two sons (present tense - Ephraim and Judah), he asked "the first" (Ephraim the firstborn - Jer 31:9 and note the significance of this birthrite being recorded in the passage of the New Covenant as well as in this parable) to work in the vineyard and ("bring forth the fruits thereof") he said no (Assyrian Exile), but then repented (First Advent). The second son (Judah) said, "I go" (First Advent), but then didn't (Roman Exile).

Note that this shows the transferral from Judah to Ephraim, and the second parable notes the transferral, because of the sin of Ephraim, back to Judah, when the Kingdom will be restored ("all that I have is yours" - Judah's vs 31). Again, notice the precision of the Holy Spirit in these two parables for, though Ephraim was the "younger son" who became the prodigal, he was still the firstborn son of the previous parable, with Judah being the second, though older son, who inherits his father's Kingdom. This should indicate to us that with Ephraim/America wasting the inheritance (biggest debtor country in the world), and experiencing a (global depression/war induced) famine (Rev 6:5), then here in America, we can expect this prophecy to soon be realized in the life of this nation. And notice, especially that, he remembered whose son he was at that time.

This view, by the way, and only this view, consistently clears up all of the remaining parables that are still hotly contested.

"To appreciate the parables in all their fullness it is absolutely necessary to keep in view the covenant and the divine purpose in its fulfillment, as shown in previous propositions...the parables having reference to the Kingdom of God must, as is the case, have reference to the rejection of Jesus and the consequences resulting therefrom, otherwise they would not be adapted to meet the exigencies of Christ's position...The change from the direct form of teaching to the parabolic which excited the astonishment (Mark 13:10) of the disciples is readily accounted for in view of this contemplated postponement, especially when it is considered that the parabolic form was introduced (so numerous Harmonies) after the representative men of the nation had commenced consulting and conspiring against Jesus. Because of the moral obliquity (Mt 13:13) evidenced by the nation, He now teaches in parables in order that they may remain in it (Mk 4:12), and carry out their plans to the end...the direct appeal being rejected, repentance being refused by the nation, the postponement of the Kingdom and the processes in preparation for its ultimate re-establishment demand the veilment of the parabolic." (Vol 1 pgs 16,21)

Not all of these parables directly apply to the Church Age (The Sower - Mt13, Mk 4, Lk 8; The Wheat and Tares - Mt 13:24; The Wicked Servant - Mt 18:21; The First and Last - Mt 20:1; The Tower - Lk 14:28; The Dutiful Servants - Lk 17:7; The True Vine - John 15:1 etc), but some to the Rejection (The Vineyard - Mt 21:33, Mk 12:1, Lk 20:9); the Rapture (The Humble Guest - Lk 14:7, The Sheepfold - John 10:1); and the Harvest (The Tribulation: The Net - Mt 13:47 which is basically the same symbolism as The Snare that springs shut at the Pretrib Rapture - Lk 21:35; The Woman in Travail - John 16:21; The Dry Tree - Lk 23:31) and even into the Millennium itself. Thus, Y'shua does not reiterate, in another parable, the same stages but further reveals the progress of the Kingdom from the postponement to its restoration. There is a consistency in interpreting these parables, founded in the first ones given (Mk 4:13) that should be maintained throughout.

THE TREASURE (Ex 19:5, Ps 135:4) hid in the field ("the field is the world") is Ephraim as a "wanderer among the nations" of the world for the last 2700 years.

THE PEARL of great price, as a product of the Sea (a type of the Gentile nations - Dan 7 etc), is the Gentile Christians grafted into Ephraim which is why the Lord linked these two parables together. Judah would be "the Jewel" in Scripture (Ez 16:12, Mal 3:17 etc) which probably includes the Antediluvian Patriarchs (Heb 11), and wasn't included here because of their rejection of the first offer. Notice that neither Judah, the Church or the Pearl was "hidden" only Ephraim - The Treasure was (compare Is 49:2 where the Lord is Y'shua and thus the arrow is someone else, and other passages that contain "hidden" things).

These assuredly correspond with THE THREE MEASURES OF MEAL that the woman (Holy Spirit - The Wisdom of Proverbs) hides the leaven (Doctrine of the Kingdom - The Covenants), which emphasizes the individuality between the Israelite, Church and Trib Saints, but also that, they are, after all, really the same.

The Parable of THE BLADE, GRASS AND EAR showing the growth of this diverse community from start to finish (emphasizing the climax at the end of the age and harvest) in its consistency and unity (and may even entail a reference to the three previous covenants themselves, for aught we know).

The Restoration of the Kingdom is described by the Parable of THE MUSTARD SEED (where a seed can be the symbol of a person - John 12:24) which "a man took" (Rapture - exact same word), and sowed (The Sower is the Lord - Mk 13:37) "in his garden" (Land of Israel) and it grew to be a shady tree (Ps 1, Jer 17) for the Fowls of the air (Good angels and Glorified Saints - Mt 13:4,9 compare Mt 24:28 etc and see Vol 2 pg 618 noting especially John 1:51 which is still future for its greatest fulfillment and see my posts on angels in achieves). For the mature, take note that the mustard seed is "THE LEAST of all seeds" sown, and compare other verses with this same phrase (Zech 4:10, Jer 49:20, 50:45, Am 9:9, Mt 11:11, 25:40 etc). Notice there is no mention of the sower "taking" the good seed at the start of the Church Age, as opposed to this "least" seed. That this is not referring to the Church Age can further be seen in the fact that, contrary to popular misinterpretation, the mustard seed is a very fast growing plant and sprouts leaves in 24 hours. This is indicative of the speed of the restoration of the Theocracy during the trib. I remind you that mustard is used to induce vomiting (Rev 3:16).

This, then, clears up the Parable of THE DRESSER of this same "garden" or "vineyard" ("The Least in the Kingdom" Mt 11:11) who persuades his Lord (Y'shua) to hold off cutting down THE NEW FIG TREE (the third year of the trib after confirming the Mosaic Covenant at the start of the trib - Lev 19:23-24, Mt 24:32 where "generations" should read "age") until it has been fertilized into the fourth year (of the trib when the Antichrist breaks "The Holy Covenant" Dan 9:27). This individual, than, is THE PORTER Mk 13:34 who watches for the Lord and opens the door for him; the Doorkeeper of the Psalms which means, literally, "to snatch away"; as well as possibly THE GOOD SERVANT of Lk 12:39; and THE FAITHFUL SERVANT made ruler over the Household in Lk 12:42 see next section for more on this aspect).

And, is not the ministry of the 144,000 to the left-behind Christians portrayed by the Parable of THE PERSISTENT FRIEND (Lk 11:5 where "children" are again engrafted Gentiles and New Converts of Lk 18:16 etc - The Children of the Kingdom), as well as in the third sending of the servants in the Parable of the supper (Lk 14:17) after the second group was already gathered into the wedding hall (vs 22 at the Pretrib Rapture -i.e. first group was the disciples to Israel with the second group being the Apostles to the World and thus this third group can only be the 144,000 to the World during the trib).

And here we have a marked contrast from THE GREAT SUPPER and THE MARRIAGE FEAST of Mt 22:1, which indicates the two stages of the Return (as a close study of the context of Luke will confirm - emphasizing both a "supper" and a "feast" twice each), as well as the sequence of events for both houses of Israel. However, this can only be seen by a very close comparison between the two, as a running synopsis. The clue to unraveling these is the two phrases "poor, maimed, lame and blind" which is REPEATED (Lk 14:13 and 21) for a specific reason, and "come, for all things are now ready" (Mt 22:4 and Lk 14:17).

These are two separate accounts (Luke's takes place at a dinner in a Pharisee's house and Matthew's after the triumphal entry has occurred), showing that he gave two separate and distinct Parables, giving us two different aspects of the return. You have the Marriage Feast at the end of the Tribulation, and the Great Supper at the beginning of the trib. And here is the breakdown (necessary, especially now, as this Parable is, perhaps, the most important one in the precise time we are at and because this account in Matt. is the passage that contains the transferral of the Kingdom which is the Key to the Kingdom, if you will, without which the Bible is left in the obscurity of the parabolic.

In Luke's account a certain man makes a Great Supper and sends his servants to bid his quests saying "Behold all things are now ready." They made excuses and would not come. The servants returned to the Lord and told him and he was angry. This was the first offer of the Kingdom to Judah (by the 12 and the 70 in the Gospels) which they rejected, resulting in the postponement of the Kingdom (or the supper if you will). This is synonymous with the first sending of the servants in Matthew's account (22:1). So then, (in Luke), he sends the servants the second time into the streets and lanes to get "the poor, maim, lame and blind" which they do, proclaiming the second time "all things are now ready," and gather them in (Pretrib Rapture), but there was still room. This is the offer of the Kingdom (or supper) to Ephraim and the Gentiles during this Church Age. However, in Matthew's account there is now a significant change in the result of the second sending of the servants and that is that they made excuses and some even killed some of the servants (one of the Doves just posted on this very subject), which caused the King to send out his Armies (plural - Hos 13) and destroyed the murders and their city. This is referring to Ephraim and not Judah, which is proven by the fact that there is no postponement this time, but the king specifically re-iterates that at that time (of this destruction) "the wedding is ready" and he then sends out the third set of servants into "the highways" (both accounts) to compel them in, which is the 144,000 during the trib (after some had already been gathered in). Luke's account very accurately records the postponement of the Kingdom and the transferral of the Kingdom from Judah to Ephraim and Matthew's account records the loss of the Kingdom by Ephraim and its return to Judah. This is further proven by the context of Matthew. He tells us about the two sons showing Judah's non-repentance, which resulted in the vineyard parable and the death of the Son (and their destruction by their own words) then the transferral of the Kingdom is stated along with the Stumbling Stone (to both houses of Israel) which reminded Y'shua that in the future Ephraim also would stumble over him, prompting this Parable of the Supper, which shows the rejection by Judah and the rejection by Ephraim which results in their judgment. The judgment of Judah is not repeated in this Parable because he just go done describing it in the vineyard Parable.

This is a very precise and detailed description of our Lord and it further supports all I have said in this section and, for those who do not generalize the precise Word of God, but take every word as inspired, then there is no other way to reconcile the differences in those two feast Parables then what I have set forth here. The Holy Spirit will bear witness to those who "have ears to hear." However, this view will only be strengthened as we proceed.

The attitude of THE PRODIGAL (America) and THE RICH BARN BUILDER (Lk 12:16) with the ground that brought forth "plentifully" (the breadbasket of the world - I hear that interest rates are at an all time low for those who are interested in refinancing their barns). It is terribly ominous that the owner of the barns was planing on tearing his old barns down so he could build a new one, which explains the judgment on that "night" ("The Morning Comes" the Rapture, "but also the Night" the trib). They will feel the edge on that one.

THE STORM CLOUD that rises in the West (Lk 12:54 probably began to rise around Nisan of this year - note the south wind that brings the judgment in the summer/fall/hurricane season - i.e. West of Israel is Europe and this is probably a veiled reference to the revival of the Roman Empire in the near future by the people who run this world described as "They" in Daniel's Vision of the Four Beasts and these are the ones who are planning the New World Order out of Chaos and thus equate to the Rich Barn Builder above), is very probably this judgment on Ephraim at the start of the trib - "judgment begins at the house of the Lord" - Church at Rapture, Ephraim at the very start of the Trib, Judah at the halfway point and the Gentiles at the end), and this transferral back to Judah.

The ONE LOST SHEEP is assuredly a reference to Ephraim as the leader of the "lost sheep" of the house of Israel (Lk 15:4), confirmed immediately by the Parable of THE TEN LOST COINS (the ten northern tribes under Ephraim), just before the Parable of the Prodigal which further emphasizes this conclusion.

These ten tribes, many of them which get left behind, are also clearly seen in THE TEN VIRGINS (Mt 25:1), who are no longer part of the Bride, but would be considered friends of the Bride and, therefore, children of the Bride chamber. According to the ancient custom (see post in achieves The Wedding Procession) these virgins would wait for the Groom and Bride to "return from the wedding" (THE WAITING SERVANTS - Lk 12:35) that took place at the Bride's parent's house. These children of the Bride chamber would be waiting near the Groom's new house, at which point they would enter in and have a Marriage Supper (there had already occurred a Feast at the Bride's Parents house). Many confuse the oil with the Holy Spirit, however, a Lamp is a type of the spirit of a man (Prov 20:20). Now, the wise virgins took extra oil with them in a separate vessel, as well as the oil already in their lamps. The unwise only took the amount of oil that they thought would be enough. The attitude of complacent believers who only do enough "good works" ("Let you light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify you father which is in heaven" - Mt 5:16), to earn the name "Christian" or in this case, "A child of the Kingdom" or "Friend of the Groom." By their attitude they show that they are really not believers. The wise, however, continue to produce good works continually, regardless of circumstances, because they love the Groom. However, this indicates that the Ten Lost Tribes themselves may be left out of the Kingdom Proper (like some from Judah - Mt 8:11 etc), if they are not totally committed to the Lord, which is the purpose for the Parable of THE WAR (Lk 14:31), indicative of this very 'wedding' procession, from Sinai to Armageddon.

It was Judah who, in the Parable of THE SHREWD SERVANT, after rejecting Y'shua, got kicked out of his position of authority (Lk 16:1) and sought "everlasting habitations" among the nations that they had previously traded with in imports and exports. And they are also seen in the Parable of THE RICH MAN (Lk 16:19) with poor Lazarus typifying the Remnant of Judah (1 Cor 16:3). This remnant itself is pictured in the Parable of THE PERSISTENT WIDOW (Lk 18:1) which represents a city (Jerusalem) that is destroyed by foreign invasion (Lam 1:1). It may also represent widowed America shortly after the Trib. Perhaps the immediate context might yield more insight for those interested.

"A Christian cannot thus object, because God, who is all-wise and merciful, undoubtedly selects the best methods by which (in the briefest time, consistent with man's moral freedom and His own Purposes), to attain to the ultimate Redemption of the world with the least loss and with the greatest honor to His moral government. Hence we, unable to grasp the innumerable details and principles underlying a Divine Plan only partially unfolded, should not set ourselves up as judges and arbiters of the matter, but simply receive the mode indicated by the Word itself." (Vol 1 pg 410)

And when we follow Mr. Peters advice, and lay aside our preconceived Theological blinders, and search the Scriptures in faith, waiting for the Illumination of the same by the Holy Spirit, then most, if not all, questions will be more than wonderfully answered.

Look at one last parable with me (Lk 19:11). A Nobleman (Y'shua) went into a far country (Israel at the reorganization at the start of the trib - Rev 4-5, Dan 7:13 when the Ancient of days "came" - as seen from Ephraim's perspective at "the ends of the Earth" where Y'shua knew they would wander to) to receive a Kingdom and commanded THE TEN SERVANTS (The Ten Lost Tribes via the 144,000) to occupy. Notice there is no death of the Nobleman and/or his son, only that "his citizens" hated him, and said we will not have this man rule over us. After he received the Kingdom and returned (end of trib) he commanded the servants be called (gathering of the elect by the angels at the end of the trib Mt 24:31), they are rewarded and then his enemies slain. Now notice the other differences between this parable and the other one in Mt 25:14.

One is given before he entered Jerusalem (which, like Zacheus and his friends represent the ten lost tribes who also are "the children of Abraham" Is 63:16, and any Gentile converts), and the other to the disciples on the Olivet discourse (representing the remnant of Judah - notice no specific number of servants as the other account). This latter represents the preaching during the Church Age when Ephraim was still lost and the former, after the Pretrib Rapture, when Ephraim's identity (America and other Anglo-Saxons countries and other small groups scattered to the four winds) is manifested (as Joseph was to his brothers during the Seven Bad Years). Also note the "long time" of Matthew's (The 2,000 yr long Church Age) is lacking from Luke's account, and nothing of the citizens (remnant of Judah) hating him and not wanting him to rule over them (when they receive him as Messiah at end of trib). The reference to the reception of the Kingdom is lacking from Matthew's account because he does not receive the Kingdom during the Church Age (as Peters proves) but only during the trib (Rev 4-5).

The reason for the second one (in Luke) was not as a witness against the rejecting nation, but because his disciples thought that the Kingdom was to "immediately appear" so he showed them when they could expect the Kingdom - after the Ten Lost Tribes had been identified in the end days (see also Lk 17:12).

Thus is the incredible detail and accuracy in the Word of the Holy Spirit. For Matt was to the Jewish Nation and Luke to the Northern Nation. Notice also that the first servant in Matthew only doubled his talent but the one in Luke multiplied his pound by tenfold. The pound is only about 1/6th of a talent and this shows the foundational work of the Apostles as compared with the 144,000 (compared to the wall of the city where the gates in the wall are made of Pearl - Gentile engraftees). This indicates the success of the Gospel preaching of the 144,000 assuredly harvesting the results of the shock of the Pretrib Rapture on a sleeping world caught unawares. The previous servants are rewarded as rulers over many things, the latter over cities (assuredly in the countries they ministered in). This is the Apostles ruling over the 12 Tribes at the Rapture (rewarded - proven by "enter into the joy of your Lord" - reception of Glorified bodies), and not to the 144,000 (who are possibly still mortals at the end of the trib - Rev 14). Thus compare Lk 17:10 (Church Age Saints at Rapture) and Luke 12:37 (Trib Saints at Return) "after the wedding." One group he reckoned with (directly at Rapture) and the other group in Luke's passage he called to have brought before him at the end of the trib (gathering by the angels of the elect).

This last Parable leads me to believe that judgment upon America will occur, not when we turn our backs on Israel per sae, but when we stumble over the Scandalon and publicly and politically and religiously as a nation reject God as our "King" or "Messiah" which God being Y'shua bar Y'hova (How is the Ten Commandments thing coming along?). Thus, when we say, "we will not have this man rule over us" then the transferral back to Judah will occur and judgment will fall on Ephraim (see 1 Pet 4:17) at the Rapture and start of the Birth pains or "The Beginnings of Sorrows."

Editor's Notes : April 14, 2008 : I originally decided that the Crowning of Moon Messiah in Washington a couple of years ago was this rejection and it may have been however, that event was actually staged by the Insiders for my benefit because of that very statement I made above. The proof that they staged the event is that this should have resulted in a forty year probation period for Ephraim as with Judah at their rejection of Messiah which would then put the beginning of judgment against Ephraim as occurring in 2044 AD which is well past the end as I have shown in my section on the Chronology. In fact, Ephraim's judgment should begin, at the latest, in 2033 AD and thus, forty years previous places us at 1993 AD which, actually, resulted in the death of the Branch Davidians and, perhaps, this is the same as rejecting Messiah, to some extent but requires further study.


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Members Login

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard