-
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.
Parallel pictures
- Thread starter Maddog
- Start date
We may not be on the same page here..... I believe that the Father has a son. The Son has an assembly of people whom make up his two wives.
The Holy Spirit is from the Father and is shared by all those in the covenant with the Son. The Holy Spirit does not have a marital relationship with anyone.....
That said.... I still respect that others may come to sincerely held beliefs that are not in agreement with mine....
I think I am pretty much on the same page as you. I think it is the Son that has the assembly of people who make up the Bride and/or Brides. I don't think the Father or the Holy Spirit have a marital relationship with anyone.
When we see YAHWEH being married to Israel/Samaria and Judah/Jerusalem in the Old Testament, I think that is the Son. When we see the Pillar of fire, Column of smoke leading Israel in the wilderness, I think that is the Son. When Moses met with YAHWEH on Mount Sinai, and received the Law, I think that was probably the Son.
When we see God walking with Adam and Eve in the garden, I think that was probably the Son.
In the future, when the Lord wipes every tear from the eyes of the Redeemed, I think it will be the Son.
After all, He is "God with us".
I might be wrong of course. I am a small finite creature, and YAHWEH is far too wonderful for me to fully understand.
This is how I see it as well....
I believe that is how it was always taught to me growing up as well but, if you track scripture from front to back, you realize that these are the same two wives that Christ takes as part of the new covenant as his brides. That would be a violation of the law of God for the son to marry his fathers wives.
With the understanding that Christ was the mediator between God and man from the beginning it all falls into place. All the stories of the fathers son getting married and him going back to prepare a place for his brides etc, it all makes perfect sense.
The son of a man dying in no way affects the marriage of the father and his wives but if the son himself is the one married to them, then his death has a direct and immediate effect on the wives marital status. For the one, House of Judah, she is instantly widowed. For the other, House of Israel, her marital bond is also broken. Hers prevented her from ever coming back to her first husband, Christ.
Both wives then need to come back into covenant with him. Thus the prophecy of the new covenant that is to come.
Personally, I am looking forward to the marriage supper of the lamb.
I always thought that too.
One passage that made me reevaluate is Jude verse 5 where we read this.
"Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe." (Jude 5 ESV).
That is quite a shocking thing to read. I had always assumed it was the Father doing both those things.
Some translations render this verse as "the Lord" rather than "Jesus". There are textual variants in the manuscripts.
The best evidence however seems to support the idea that "Jesus" is the word used in the original text.
That seems to accord with Romans 7 where we read that the death and resurrection of the Son terminates one bond, and established a new union.
Yes! Come Lord Jesus
I think we tend to have a vague impression that the Old Testament is about God the Father, and that the New Testament is about the Son.
That isn't right. It is all one big beautiful story about how our God saves a people for Himself.
He is another, and related question.
We often read about adoption/sonship. We read that God is our Father, and we are His children.
Does the language of adoption and sonship specifically refer to our relationship with the Father, while our language of marriage and lordship specifically refer to our relationship with the Son?
We often read about adoption/sonship. We read that God is our Father, and we are His children.
Does the language of adoption and sonship specifically refer to our relationship with the Father, while our language of marriage and lordship specifically refer to our relationship with the Son?
I will render my understanding... As individuals, we are the children of Christ. Yes, through adoption / grafting in....
As an assembly, we make up the whole of the household of Christ. Either through the House of Judah or the House of Israel. We are further divided into tribes. But at the corporate level we make up the two nations that he calls his wives. Interestingly, this is exactly to whom the new covenant is prophesied unto. The House of Israel and the House of Judah.
As children, we should see our lives while in our mortal bodies as the gestation period. IF we are born again into a spirit body, we will never die the second death. That is the true salvation that we hope for as Paul also said he hopes for.
We, as children that do not make it to the end of their gestation cycle, are not born, in this case, of the spirit. Scripture tells us repeatedly that we must endure unto the end for our salvation sake.
Also, Because we as individuals are not a bride, our salvation or lack of it, has no effect on the prophecy of the new covenant with his two brides.
He will have his two brides at the marriage supper of the lamb whether I make it or not. You may make it and I may make it but if either of us fall away, the marriage will go on.
Humbly I disagree. Ezekiel 16 specifically refers to "LORD" who is Yahweh(Jehovah)who adopts the filthy newborn found in the mud and blood on the side of the road. I always understood that to mean Our Heavenly Father. Unless you conflate Yahweh with Jesus, Yahweh is in covenant with Jerusalem- later defined as Ahola(sp) and Aholibah(sp).
In contrast, Jesus is the Bridegroom and the church(ekklesia- the called out ones) is the bride.
Is the church the new name for Israel and churches are the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament Israel? To me that starts to go down a wrong path. Accompanying that is the movement which declares itself non-christian but follows yehashua(sp) Jesus on the basis of the various names. If you don't hold to the "true" names of God then you are not following the "right" (little g)god. It is almost cultic in my opinion.
I start to bristle when someone tells me I am worshipping the wrong god because I mispronounce His name. I follow the pattern of Jesus's words as he taught, "Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name..." That verbiage rather excludes all the bad entities.
In contrast, Jesus is the Bridegroom and the church(ekklesia- the called out ones) is the bride.
Is the church the new name for Israel and churches are the New Testament fulfillment of the Old Testament Israel? To me that starts to go down a wrong path. Accompanying that is the movement which declares itself non-christian but follows yehashua(sp) Jesus on the basis of the various names. If you don't hold to the "true" names of God then you are not following the "right" (little g)god. It is almost cultic in my opinion.
I start to bristle when someone tells me I am worshipping the wrong god because I mispronounce His name. I follow the pattern of Jesus's words as he taught, "Our Father Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name..." That verbiage rather excludes all the bad entities.
@Maddog
The Name YAHWEH/Jehovah/I Am does seem to be used of the Son as well as the Father.
"And Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven," (Genesis 19:24 Legacy Standard Bible)
There are apparently two distinct YAHWEH in view here. There seems to be One YAHWEH here on earth, executing judgement on Sodom, and a different YAHWEH in Heaven agreeing and providing the fire and brimstone.
I take the first to be the Son/Logos, and the second to be the Father.
YAHWEH also appeared to Abraham right before this in Genesis 18, at the oaks of Mamre, giving the promise of Isaac's birth, and discussed the upcoming destruction of Sodom. I take this to be YAHWEH the Son/Logos.
In the New Testament, Jesus seems to apply the Divine Name to Himself.
"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58 LSB)
I think He just said "before Abraham was, I am YAHWEH/Jehovah/I AM".
The Name YAHWEH/Jehovah/I Am does seem to be used of the Son as well as the Father.
"And Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven," (Genesis 19:24 Legacy Standard Bible)
There are apparently two distinct YAHWEH in view here. There seems to be One YAHWEH here on earth, executing judgement on Sodom, and a different YAHWEH in Heaven agreeing and providing the fire and brimstone.
I take the first to be the Son/Logos, and the second to be the Father.
YAHWEH also appeared to Abraham right before this in Genesis 18, at the oaks of Mamre, giving the promise of Isaac's birth, and discussed the upcoming destruction of Sodom. I take this to be YAHWEH the Son/Logos.
In the New Testament, Jesus seems to apply the Divine Name to Himself.
"Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8:58 LSB)
I think He just said "before Abraham was, I am YAHWEH/Jehovah/I AM".
I respect that. And, I count your disagreement as good faith on your part. We all must be bereans.
I do NOT conflate Jesus to his Father.
I believe that the church IS the ekklesia in the wilderness as is quoted here:
Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
I know that people call the messiah by many names. Jesus is the most common in the USA. Yeshua, Yehosah, Yehosawah and many many more.
There are many that claim they know the exact proper enunciation of his name. I do not know of a definitive way to pronounce it and I am not offended by the many other names that people use, regardless of how original or modern they attempt to use.
I believe his NAME is his authority, reputation and power anyway, way more than how it is pronounced.
Not a bad pattern.
To the theology now... If God the Father was married to the House of Israel and to the House of Judah, then why the promise of a new marriage covenant? He never divorced the House of Judah so it would mean that he is still married to her.
Only the Son dying would cause/allow the need for a new covenant.
And that is my take on it. I hope this is not offensive as I am not trying to be in anyway. I love you guys for digging into the word even if we don't come to the exact same conclusions!
This has been the most convincing argument for me on the matter.
Ummmmm......do you remember Lord divorcing Israel in Old Testament.
I do believe husband can't marry again woman he divorced unless husband dies. And since Lord wants to save everyone.......