Jeremiah chapter 7

[Joleneakamama]

I'm not sure how well I can do at explaining this, but I'll give it a try here.

Jeremiah chapter 7 is where YHWH made it very clear to Judah that their possession of the land was conditional, AND that they would not meet those conditions.

One big condition was shedding no more innocent blood there.

Some have suggested that the Babylon exile fulfilled this judgement, but I just cannot believe that for a couple reasons. One reason is that Yeshua quoted part of this chapter cleansing the temple "has my house become a den of robbers?" and then His final lamentation over Jerusalem before His death was "How oft would I have gathered you, and ye would not, YOUR HOUSE IS LEFT UNTO YOU DESOLATE" and THAT was the judgement. I see His shed blood as sealing that in a definate way.

One question is did YHWH ever return to Shiloh? He said He would do to Jerusalem AND THE LAND HE GAVE THEIR FATHERS what He did to Shiloh.

What I see is that He could keep His promise to Abraham by letting Ishmael's descendants (Abraham's seed) have that land. They didn't make an idol out of Jerusalem. He promised to do better to Israel then at their beginnings, He promised them a NEW LAND many times.

America actually fits the description of the "company of nations" of latter day Israel that gets invaded in the Gog Magig battle.

Then too, there is a verse that says "the enemy hath said "Aha! Even the ancient high places are ours in possession" and they didn't think of it as ancient at the time of Yeshua's ministry.

Now Jacob/Israel prophesied that "The scepter would not depart from Judah .....till Shiloh be come, and TO HIM will the gathering of the people be" so I dont believe they will all be gathered to a place, but will be gathered into the body. Part of my reason is He said He would plant Israel in all the earth.

He also prophesied a new name for His servants.

There is also a passage that says
"they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

3Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel."

These are some of the reasons I don't believe the end time prophesies about Israel will be fulfilled by those using the old name and denying the one He sent.

How do others here see Jeremiah 7 impacting scripture interpretation or rather our understanding of the prophesies?

 

[scarlet25]

America actually fits the description of the "company of nations" of latter day Israel that gets invaded in the Gog Magig battle.

Just to clarify, are you saying that the United States of America is somehow "God's Chosen Nation," and that the promises Jehovah made to His People in the Endtimes are directed at the USA, rather than Israel?

These are some of the reasons I don't believe the end time prophesies about Israel will be fulfilled by those using the old name and denying the one He sent.

And, am I understanding this to mean you believe when Endtime Prophecies speak of Israel, they do not mean Israel by name, and that your evidence of this is because Israel is filled with Jews?

 

[Mark C]

While I would have some differences on some elements, perhaps later, when time permits, I am in general agreement.

I certainly see MUCH in YermeYahu/Jeremiah 7 that seems directly applicable to a pagan AmeriKa, almost to the point of being undeniable.

(And this I/we, with my co-hosts, discussed at some length in a series of "Torah Teachers' Round Table" Shows on Hebrew Nation Radio a while back. If we had been 'bad-mouthing' polygyny, or the President, I could probably post the link, but, it would be censored now. Some will be able to find it if interested. We also, of course, spent a considerable amount of time on chapter 3, which helps set it up.)

Addendum: Because, as Jeremiah 3 (among others, including the Books of Kings and Chronicles) makes clear, the nation of Israel under King David is NOT the same as that under the kings of Ephraim, not the same as the multitudinous references in the very same verse or phrase to Yakov and Israel, or Ezekiel's two sticks, still not 'echad,' and certainly not the socialist modern-day political state of "Israel," whose 'Torah-obedience' is still arguably largely "feigned."

 

[Joleneakamama]

You sound upset.

Just to clarify, are you saying that the United States of America is somehow "God's Chosen Nation," and that the promises Jehovah made to His People in the Endtimes are directed at the USA, rather than Israel?

Have you read any of the passages I'm talking about? Like the description of the land invaded in Gog Magog?

And, am I understanding this to mean you believe when Endtime Prophecies speak of Israel, they do not mean Israel by name, and that your evidence of this is because Israel is filled with Jews?

YHWH said it is the seed (children) of Israel that will be a nation befor Him forever. Jesus said "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." I believe He called the "Sheep" out of the synagogues and into the new covenant 2000 years ago. If we do as He said to, and judge by fruit, Israel is in the body of Christ. Otherwise we are using how someone "self identifies" (a religious label) instead of doing as He said to.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

I'm not sure how well I can do at explaining this, but I'll give it a try here.

Jeremiah chapter 7 is where YHWH made it very clear to Judah that their possession of the land was conditional, AND that they would not meet those conditions.

One big condition was shedding no more innocent blood there.

Some have suggested that the Babylon exile fulfilled this judgement, but I just cannot believe that for a couple reasons. One reason is that Yeshua quoted part of this chapter cleansing the temple "has my house become a den of robbers?" and then His final lamentation over Jerusalem before His death was "How oft would I have gathered you, and ye would not, YOUR HOUSE IS LEFT UNTO YOU DESOLATE" and THAT was the judgement. I see His shed blood as sealing that in a definate way.

One question is did YHWH ever return to Shiloh? He said He would do to Jerusalem AND THE LAND HE GAVE THEIR FATHERS what He did to Shiloh.

What I see is that He could keep His promise to Abraham by letting Ishmael's descendants (Abraham's seed) have that land. They didn't make an idol out of Jerusalem. He promised to do better to Israel then at their beginnings, He promised them a NEW LAND many times.

America actually fits the description of the "company of nations" of latter day Israel that gets invaded in the Gog Magig battle.

Then too, there is a verse that says "the enemy hath said "Aha! Even the ancient high places are ours in possession" and they didn't think of it as ancient at the time of Yeshua's ministry.

Now Jacob/Israel prophesied that "The scepter would not depart from Judah .....till Shiloh be come, and TO HIM will the gathering of the people be" so I dont believe they will all be gathered to a place, but will be gathered into the body. Part of my reason is He said He would plant Israel in all the earth.

He also prophesied a new name for His servants.

There is also a passage that says
"they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek.

2But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

3Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel."

These are some of the reasons I don't believe the end time prophesies about Israel will be fulfilled by those using the old name and denying the one He sent.

How do others here see Jeremiah 7 impacting scripture interpretation or rather our understanding of the prophesies?

Something I hope to study next. I need to get grounded on this. You are giving me some homework. Once I come to better understanding, I may know what "And so all Israel shall be saved:" (Romans 11:26) mean?

 

[scarlet25]

Have you read any of the passages I'm talking about? Like the description of the land invaded in Gog Magog?

Again, this question of "have you read "insert Bible passage here." I'm trying not to take this as the outright insult it seems to rather obviously be (asking a Christian if they have read the Bible is like asking an English major if they are familiar with Shakespeare), but I'm hard-pressed to interpret it any other way so excuse me if I sound a little snippy in the wake of your question.
Yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover, multiple times. In multiple languages, in fact: English, German, Bahassa Malay, Kazakh, and Hebrew (though I can only speak of the Apocrypha in English and Hebrew). If we're speaking of the New Testament, I've read it without the Old in Mandarin, Belarusian and Uzbek in addition. With that said, the land invaded by Gog and Magog is pretty obviously the exact borders of Israel and the route of the invasion (south through the Caucasus and into Iran, where the army is joined by Iranian (Persian) troops before turning West toward Israel) is fairly clear-cut.
Also, as a side note, the identity of Gog is rather glaringly obvious. It's Russia.
The word used to refer to Gog's land is "Nessi Rosh." That's translated as "Chief prince" but there's a problem: "Chief Prince" is "Rosh Nessi." "Nessi," when place in front of another word, is "prince of." This is visible in the phrase "Nessi Sor" (Prince of Tyre) in Ezekiel 28:2. Every Hebrew-speaking theologian I have ever run across says (and as a Hebrew speaker I'm inclined to agree) that this phrase is not "chief prince" but "prince of [a place called Rosh]." Ezekiel 38 goes on to name Gog's cities: Meshech and Tubal. These are etymologically obvious. They're Moscow and Tobolsk (the capital of European Russia and the principal city of Asiatic Russia). Finally, Gog is described as "an enemy from the far north." Moscow is directly due north of Jerusalem. It's the only major city in the world within so few longitude line of Jerusalem, in fact.

Which segues nicely into "yes, when the Bible says Israel, it means the Israel that's in Israel; the one with the same borders as ancient Israel, the same religion as ancient Israel, the same well-documented bloodlines as ancient Israel, the same enemies as ancient Israel, which was formed against all odds through the same means the God of Abraham foretold He would restore ancient Israel." Yes, His covenant with them to remain on their land was contingent upon them continuing in obedience, but He made plain that after He scattered them He would bring them back and He specifically said "to Jerusalem." This prophecy was fulfilled by the millions who made Aliyah to Israel in the 1940's and '50's from every corner of the Earth.

As for America, I don't see where it qualifies as "a company of nations." America only has one national identity, even as fragmented as its government is deliberately designed to be. There is no ethnic or national distinction between a Floridian and an Oregonian, or an Alaskan and a Louisianian. The European Union might be a different story, but that's neither here nor there.
America though... well, it seems to have more in common with the woman riding the red beast in Revelation, especially the way all those who once got rich off of it are turning against it and tearing its raiment to pieces right now, revealing its nakedness for all the world to see how wretched it has always been. I am in absolute awe of how quickly the current regime we have set up by asking "Give us a king [dictator] to rule over us so that we may be like other nations"] is alienating allies and driving them into China's arms, and Jehovah's warning of "I will make you a byword among nations" is the only thing He ever said to ancient Israel that I can see applying to America.

I simply cannot look around at America and believe that this is, or ever was, a "land chosen by God," or that this nation is somehow Biblically assured of a blessed future, especially when we are watching its collapse in real-time.

 

[Mark C]

Brief history listen: America, as in 'these united States,' was always a confederation of "free and independent states," precisely as the Declaration concludes. EACH was guaranteed, when we still had a Constitution, a "republican form of government."

So, while I hadn't considered this element in this context, it is a good point:

America actually fits the description of the "company of nations..."

 

[OttoM]

You sound upset.

Have you read any of the passages I'm talking about? Like the description of the land invaded in Gog Magog?

We're told exactly where the land is that Gog and Magog marches their army towards. It's not America:

Ezekiel 37:21
Then say to them, ‘Thus says the LORD God: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land

24 David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever.

Imagine for a second a "Greater Exodus" lead by the Messiah for the re-united two kingdoms of Israel (House of Jacob). The people are entering into the land. Why would they need to build massive walls if they have the Creator on their side, and a promise of everlasting peace? "A camp of the Saints" (definition of a saint is in Rev 14:12) is a better word for it, and that's exactly what is being described:

Ezekiel 38:11-12
You will say, ‘I will go up against a land of unwalled villages; I will go to a peaceful people, who dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates’— 12 to take plunder and to take booty, to stretch out your hand against the waste places that are again inhabited, and against a people gathered from the nations, who have acquired livestock and goods, who dwell in the midst of the land.

So the location of the land - based on the Scripture - is the same land YAH gave his servant Jacob to. That land is not America. Egypt is too far away from America. There is some debate that the Holy Land includes parts of Africa. Remember - the Creator said he would increase their borders (Deut 12:20). Many people don't realize how beautiful the nature is in Africa.

Also, this has definitely not occurred yet. Multiple reasons why - the northern kingdom (the other stick) is missing from the nation state of Israel - plus they have no peace (unwalled villages does not describe the current nation state of Israel), nor do they have a King. But it's something that occurs in the last years (which many believe we're in):

Ezekiel 38:8
In the last years you will enter a land that has been restored from war and regathered from many peoples to the mountains of Israel, which had long been a ruin. They were brought out from the nations, and all of them now live securely.

The last Feast Day - Sukkot - is regarding the first Exodus. Paul says that the Creator's Feast Days are a shadow picture pointing to the Risen Christ. It's just further confirmation that the "Greater Exodus" occurs in the last days, and it brings forth a final "Gog and Magog" war; which ends with that armies destruction (whom YAHUAH himself destroys), and peace on earth under one King (Luke 1:33).

 

[The Revolting Man]

As much as I admire @Joleneakamama and her family, I’ve never been able to wrap my head around this particular belief.

Although I do agree that modern Israel, as currently constituted, is not prophetic Israel, I’m hard pressed to see how prophetic Israel won’t be located there.

 

[Mark C]

Although I do agree that modern Israel, as currently constituted, is not prophetic Israel, I’m hard pressed to see how prophetic Israel won’t be located there.

Agreed. I read the prophecies to say that the 'Greater Exodus' will be to the promised Land given to Abraham, et al.

For now, however, "Israel," (which has MANY meanings in Scripture, but in this case are the descendants of the twelve tribes, many of whom don't even know their physical/bloodline OR spiritual nature) is still scattered.

I expect that when the time comes to be regathered, we'll know what that destination will be, but perhaps not which tribes' inheritance.

PS> I don't disagree that it's not possible we'll see 'intermediate sites' before that, as people are called to "come out of her," and find a place, perhaps in the US, other places too.

 

[Joleneakamama]

Again, this question of "have you read "insert Bible passage here." I'm trying not to take this as the outright insult it seems to rather obviously be (asking a Christian if they have read the Bible is like asking an English major if they are familiar with Shakespeare), but I'm hard-pressed to interpret it any other way so excuse me if I sound a little snippy in the wake of your question.

I didn't at all intend to insult you. I think your tendency to take it that way is probably because you think highly of your own level of knowlege....something I was unaware of.
I asked the question because nothing in your post touched on Jeremiah 7 or answered my initial question.

"How do others here see Jeremiah 7 impacting scripture interpretation or rather our understanding of the prophesies?"

You focused on my comment about America instead.

 

[scarlet25]

I didn't at all intend to insult you.

Pardon me, but what non-insulting context can this question have? Not asking sarcastically or rhetorically either. Think about it. It is essentially a foregone conclusion that anyone professing to be a Christian has read the entire Bible at some point in their lives, is it not?
So, asking someone who has been a devout follower of Christ for decades if they have read a particular Bible passage is, as I said, like asking an English major if they have read Canterbury Tales, or asking a Physics professor if they've heard of the Theory of Relativity. Be honest here: if I had asked you this same question, asking "have you read" something that is fundamental to the entire faith everyone here professes, can you truthfully say with a straight face you would not have found it just as insulting?

 

[steve]

Pardon me, but what non-insulting context can this question have? Not asking sarcastically or rhetorically either. Think about it. It is essentially a foregone conclusion that anyone professing to be a Christian has read the entire Bible at some point in their lives, is it not?
So, asking someone who has been a devout follower of Christ for decades if they have read a particular Bible passage is, as I said, like asking an English major if they have read Canterbury Tales, or asking a Physics professor if they've heard of the Theory of Relativity. Be honest here: if I had asked you this same question, asking "have you read" something that is fundamental to the entire faith everyone here professes, can you truthfully say with a straight face you would not have found it just as insulting?

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.
She doesn’t know you from Adam’s off ox and shouldn’t be expected to know your level of understanding.
You didn’t address her question directly, so she had a response.

You are altogether too prickly, getting into dustups at an almost record pace. We have had worse.

 

[scarlet25]

shouldn’t be expected to know your level of understanding.

When I enter a site with "Biblical" in its name, I consider it a foregone conclusion that every member is familiar with the Bible and reads it regularly to become moreso. That is not "expecting to know someone's level of understanding." It is a rather axiomatic statement of "I presume Bible believers are Bible readers." The very nature of the question presumes that the person asking it believes the person being asked does not fall into the latter category and therefore is not part of the former.

You are altogether too prickly, getting into dustups at an almost record pace.

Asking a perfectly valid question without leveling a single insult of my own, is a "dustup?" Fascinating. I've been told (by you, actually) that I was uneducated, poorly-read, and now "too prickly." Meanwhile, I've been accused (on this thread) of having not read my Bible, which was frankly the most vicious of the above-mentioned barbs; insult my education all you like. I'll sit between my two framed doctorates and laugh. To so casually question one's desire to know her Master's words though? Yes, I feel quite justified taking that one quite personally.
And yet after enduring all of these, I've never fired back at you or at Jolene,. All I have done is pointed out how insulted I was by your own comments.
If pointing out your insults without returning any of my own is "protesting too much," then to channel Patrick Henry, "if this be protesting too much, make the most of it."

 

[Mark C]

I'll sit between my two framed doctorates and laugh.

No, you aren't just 'prickly' - you cackle. And you have a level of hubris that would make Orange Man blush.

I'm proud to have been first on your 'banned' list.

PS> For the record, since you won't read this anyway...
...I don't claim you never READ a Bible, but - like we see here - it's your level of comprehension I question. Regardless of how much "Piled Higher and Deeper" you claim.

 

[steve]

When I enter a site with "Biblical" in its name, I consider it a foregone conclusion that every member is familiar with the Bible and reads it regularly to become moreso.

Actually, we are here for those who don’t know it all.
Presuming that we all should is silly.

 

[scarlet25]

Actually, we are here for those who don’t know it all.
Presuming that we all should is silly.

I don't presume to know it all, nor think anyone else does. I DO presume to be trying to learn it all (or get as close as a mortal can), and that everyone beside me is doing likewise. I would not have dreamed of accusing anyone otherwise, and would not have asked a question that implied that was in doubt (such as asking someone on a Biblical site if they had read a Bible passage).

 

[The Revolting Man]

Agreed. I read the prophecies to say that the 'Greater Exodus' will be to the promised Land given to Abraham, et al.

For now, however, "Israel," (which has MANY meanings in Scripture, but in this case are the descendants of the twelve tribes, many of whom don't even know their physical/bloodline OR spiritual nature) is still scattered.

I expect that when the time comes to be regathered, we'll know what that destination will be, but perhaps not which tribes' inheritance.

PS> I don't disagree that it's not possible we'll see 'intermediate sites' before that, as people are called to "come out of her," and find a place, perhaps in the US, other places too.

It could definitely be a beginning to prophetic Israel, a stop on the way there.

 

[steve]

I don't presume to know it all

You are going to have to modify your communication if you expect others to be convinced of that.

 

[MeganC]

When I enter a site with "Biblical" in its name, I consider it a foregone conclusion that every member is familiar with the Bible and reads it regularly to become moreso.

This comment of yours ^^^ is in conflict with this one:

I don't presume to know it all,

If you consider it to be a foregone conclusion then you are presuming to know it all.

The truth be told is that while most people here are conversant with the Bible there are others who have deeply studied it and I mean at an academic level. This is my main attraction to being here is these people on this site have done more to expand my understanding of the Bible than seven years of Beth Moore and BSF and fellowship discussions ever did.

Other people here may not know Chapter and Verse yet they demonstrate the Living Word in their lives and in their witness here. I am humbled by and inspired by these people.

I know plenty of people (like the lady in the mirror) who may know quite a bit of Chapter and Verse yet who utterly fail at the implementation of the wisdom to be found in these words.

In short, knowing it all is not the same as living it all.

Just my opinion and free advice is that you should spend more time here and start figuring out who lives the Word without knowing it all and sorting them out from the people who may know it all yet fail to live it.

If you must pick one then living the Word is much better than merely knowing it.

Also, we have plenty of new people come here seeking. They run the spectrum of atheists who are curious about us, people who are seeking, and people who want to fellowship here and at the meetups. Assuming that everyone on this site is some sort of scholar and devout follower of Christ would be an error.

I hope you stay around and get to know the people here as the cross section of Christianity that they are. Your foregone conclusion, IMHO, will be nothing more to you than a source of frustration both for you and for others who do not fit into your expectations of them.

Regards, Megan