Evidence for God from Science

Dale Tooley wrote:Study number twenty-five Dale Tooley
This is our fifth subject in the Revelation series. It is to be read as a continuation of the article titled "The First Six Seals" and covers chapter 7.

We are now to look at the Seventh Seal which stands apart from the other six. Revelation 6:17 concludes the first six seals and asks a vital question:

For the day of Thy great wrath has come and who is able to stand?

"The Day of God's Great Wrath" - rightly put in capitals - is total wind up time folks! Its not just something along the way. We saw that Nahum 1:6-7 asks and answers the question of who can be excluded from God's wrath, briefly, with the words:

"Who can stand before His indignation? Who can stand His burning anger? His wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken up by him. The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble, and he knows those who takerefuge in Him.

The "camera" of John's vision now turns to study those who are able to stand. He is given a number: 144,000. Interesting!

A nice rounded off number, no room for adjustment. Also there are numbers of 12,000 for each of twelve tribes. No room for adjustment here either. Could it have symbolic significance? We will see.

At first blush they look like a list of the ancient tribes of Israel. Is this what it takes to stand on the day of Judgment? We had better look closer. Whenever the tribes were listed in the Old Testament Reuben was always listed first. Why was that so? Well, Reuben was the first born and under that Order the first born always took the pre-eminence.

Question: Who is the first born of the new Spiritual Israel? Paul in his letter to the Colossians gives this honour to Jesus with these words:

He is also the head of the body, the Church, and He is the beginning, the first born from the dead; so that He Himself might have first place in everything.

So another question: If the list here in Revelation is of natural Jews, why is Judah listed first and not Reuben? Answer: Judah is listed first instead of Reuben because Jesus is "the Lion of the tribe of Judah". Earlier in Revelation (3:14) Jesus is called, the beginning of the Creation of God.

What creation was the angel talking about? It wasn't the creation of nature or any other created order. As part of the Godhead Jesus precedes and transcends every thing made. Surely we are talking about the New Creation. So it is right that our symbol shows Judah listed first.

There are other things about this list that are decidedly peculiar if this is a list of natural Jews. The tribes of Dan and Ephraim are not listed! Dan was a small tribe. Must there be 12,000 from his tribe or the whole lot miss out? That doesn't seem fair.

Ephraim was a huge tribe, at one time filling half the land. Didn't anyone from this tribe qualify?

Verse 8 of our study chapter shows Joseph listed as a tribe. When was Joseph ever listed among the tribes of Israel? His place was always taken by Ephraim and Manasseh. Here Manasseh is listed with his father Joseph, but Ephraim's name is dropped.

The Holy Spirit is giving us a spiritual lesson so we had better listen! Hosea 4:17, Jeremiah 7:15-16 and Judges 18 tell us that the tribes of Ephraim and Dan were steeped in idolatry. They therefore were not fitting symbols for God's New Israel.

The Church incidentally, includes the Old Testament saints - but that's another study.

Joseph, on the other hand, was a wonderful type of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now all these points considered I suggest to you that what we have here is a picture of the redeemed company, the true Israel, without idolatry and modeled after the Lord Jesus Christ. Galatians 3:16 says:

Now the promises were given to Abraham and his Seed. He does not say, and to seeds, as referring to many, but rather to one, and to your Seed, that is Christ.

As part of the new creation we owe our very existence to Jesus. The Holy Spirit through Isaiah called us "His Offspring".

He will see His offspring, he will prolong his days, (i.e., be raised from the dead), and the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. (Isaiah 53:10)

We are, after all, the Church of the first born (Hebrews 12:23).

We should take note that this company, symbolised by 144,000 is a sealed company.

2 Corinthians 1:21 and 22 says:

Now He who establishes us with you in Christ, and anointed us , is God, who also sealed us, and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.

We have the same truth again given to us in Ephesians 1:13-14.

You were sealed in Himwith the Holy spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.

These sealed ones are bond-servants, which means, "slaves by choice", not forced slaves.

When David said prophetically, from a distance, to the Messiah:

Rule in the midst of Thine enemies, he followed up by saying, Thy people will volunteer freely in the day of Thy power. (Psalm 110:3)

So why did God use the number 144,000 to signify the redeemed company, in total? It will be seen that all the numbers (including the time periods) given in the book of Revelation are coded and have symbolic meaning. They are not really a new set of numbers but numbers that have had previous significance in the earlier books of the Bible, both New and Old Testament. Three will be seen as the number for God (He is after all, Three in One) and four is the number for the earth. The Bible often speaks of the "four corners" or "four portions" of the earth. Twelve represents God working in the earth. Hence twelve Tribes and Twelve Apostles. The number ten is Scripture always speaks of completeness. Completeness can be cubed to absolute completeness (height, width and depth). This gives us the figure 1000. God working with one complete symbolic tribe is therefore represented by 12000. Twelve such tribes gives us the figure 144,000. Here is God's perfectly complete Church whose names are enrolled in heaven. (Hebrews 12:23)

John heard the number, which was symbolic. The reality was much bigger! When he looked he saw,

a great multitude, which no man could number from every nation, and all tribes and peoples and tongues.

These were dressed in white robes, triumphant, worshipping and saying,

Amen, blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen!

The white robes they wore had once been soiled but they washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Those filthy robes would have taken them into great tribulation (Revelation 2:22) but,

these are the ones who came out of the great tribulation.

We should remember that Romans 2:9 says, There will be tribulation and distress on every soul of man that does evil...
and Ephesians 2:3 says,

We all formally lived in the lusts of the flesh and mind and were by nature the children of wrath.

Of course those who have had years, even decades, of indoctrination about a coming Great Tribulation period on earth and argued back and forth as to whether Christians will take part in it, will find it may take time to work through this concept.

Verses 15 to 17 of our study chapter are usually used as comforting words at funerals regarding the dead and the joys of the after life, and there is nothing wrong with that. It certainly applies! But look again. The reality of these verses can be entered into now! Partially at least. Jesus spreads His tabernacle over us even now! When He was here in the flesh He tabernacled with us (see John 1:14 margin). Now He is with us through the Comforter (John 14:16), being our Shepherd and guiding us, even now, to thesprings of the water of life.

Isaiah, in one of those "In That Day" prophecies that always speak of the Day of Grace (see my series of articles regarding In That Day prophecies) saw in the Spirit this redeemed company that had been delivered from Tribulation:

And in that day you will say: "O Lord I will praise you, though you were angry with me, your anger is turned away, and you comfort me. Behold God is my salvation, I will trust and not be afraid. for YAH, the Lord, is my strength and my song; He also has become my salvation.  (Isaiah 12:1-2)

Gman wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Gman wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Today we do not have a functioning Sanhedrin judicial system under G-d. But one day in the future, this system will come back, and with Jesus as it's functioning ruler.

Just to be clear, you are saying, the stonings will come back and will be carried out under christ?

Who knows what form of capitol punishment will come back in the next millennium. Only that Jesus will be the head of the judgements.

If the law is eternal, as you say it is, then its really a no-brainer what kind of capital punishments are being talked about, isn't it?

Absolutely.. But even if it doesn't come true in the future, to call the act of stoning barbaric would have to call G-d Himself barbaric since He inspired Moshe to command it.. Actually it would seem that the act of stoning would not only be a horrific to the person being stoned, but also to the people witnessing it. In some way it could be argued that the horrific act of stoning would actually prevent more people from sinning and thus preserve life instead of taking away life.

Many also argue that the asteroids as described in such places as Revelation 8:7-12 is the stoning of earth by G-d for it's injustice.. So in that case you could argue that it is coming back except on a bigger scale.. Regardless, I wouldn't condemn the G-d of the Bible for instituting it. We also serve a G-d of wrath Romans 1:18, Romans 12:17-21, Exodus 15:3.

PaulSacramento wrote:It is perfectly fine to call the act of stoning someone to death barbaric because, will it was/is.
Does that make God barbaric because He gave that Law?
No, it makes the TIME and PLACE and PEOPLE that God had to deal with barbaric because they NEEDED a Law like that to keep them in line.

I have no issues with the view that God accommodated His Laws to the people He was dealing with at the time, I mean how could he not?
I don't want to get into a huge argument about Law VS Grace VS whatever.
To mean at least, this verse sums things up:
John 5:
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
25“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Those that believe will not be judged, those that don't will be judged by their deeds.

Jac3510 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:It is perfectly fine to call the act of stoning someone to death barbaric because, will it was/is.
Does that make God barbaric because He gave that Law?
No, it makes the TIME and PLACE and PEOPLE that God had to deal with barbaric because they NEEDED a Law like that to keep them in line.

I have no issues with the view that God accommodated His Laws to the people He was dealing with at the time, I mean how could he not?
I don't want to get into a huge argument about Law VS Grace VS whatever.
To mean at least, this verse sums things up:
John 5:
24“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
25“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26“For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28“Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Those that believe will not be judged, those that don't will be judged by their deeds.

Ah yes, the good old accommodation theory!

As an aside, we also know that all those stories about angels and miracles were made up, too. After all, it's not that they actually happened, but that the people back then were so primative that they actually needed things put in such language. The good news, of course, is that we are much more advanced today. We don't need such language to see the real truth of the matter.

Byblos wrote:
Seriously? Is this the level of understanding we've descended to? Sorry, G but this is a load of crap.

PaulSacramento wrote:The accommodation theory is a very valid one, unless people believe that God can speak to ancient man in ways that ancient man can't understand and yet, somehow, ancient man not only understood BUT was able to pass on that message/vision to others without any problem.

We as human use it all that time.
When I say that it's colder than Winnipeg in February, that is accommodating my message to Canadians and it will mean very little to people from Brazil.

The God gave the hebrews statutes that were specific to THEM and to what they were set apart to become is clear in the OT.
That some of them were even "bad" statutes is also suggested according to some and debatable according to others ( I tend to agree with the literal reading of Ezekiel in that regard and do think that certain statutes that were "not good" were given to the Isrealites) hints at God accomodating His Law giving to specific circumstances.
God's frustration with the Hebrew people is pretty clear through out the OT AND NT.
I just can't fathom God NOT accommodating Us.

Kurieuo wrote:I think it erroneous to classify any civilisation as barbaric simply on a basis of having more ancient origins.

But, I think you are right that the Laws given to Israel, were for Israel alone, but not on the basis that Israel were barbaric because "of the TIME and PLACE and PEOPLE that God had to deal with barbaric because they NEEDED a Law like that to keep them in line."

Gman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I think it erroneous to classify any civilisation as barbaric simply on a basis of having more ancient origins.

But, I think you are right that the Laws given to Israel, were for Israel alone, but not on the basis that Israel were barbaric because "of the TIME and PLACE and PEOPLE that God had to deal with barbaric because they NEEDED a Law like that to keep them in line."

Sometimes I just really have to hold my breath to read such things.. A time, a place, and a people? To me it's just absolutely incredible to see how we chop up G-d's commandments and then label them as barbaric or burdensome stones.. It just floors me... I DO NOT understand how you can read into that. Seriously.

And we are not any different from the people of the OT times? Lying, murdering, stealing?? I don't know about you guys but I fail G-d's commandments daily.. That is why we need His grace.

Kurieuo wrote: Is that directed to me or PS? If to me, please re-read my post.

Gman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Is that directed to me or PS? If to me, please re-read my post.

If you didn't mean that then no... But there are many who see G-d's commandments in such a way.. And I have no clue why. I'm speechless... And I'm not claiming that I have everything together myself or have a secret holy knowledge into G-d's commandments. I just don't see the logic of calling G-d's laws as barbaric. That's all..

Kurieuo wrote:

Gman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Is that directed to me or PS? If to me, please re-read my post.

If you didn't mean that then no... But there are many who see G-d's commandments in such a way.. And I have no clue why. I'm speechless... And I'm not claiming that I have everything together myself or have a secret holy knowledge into G-d's commandments. I just don't see the logic of calling G-d's laws as barbaric. That's all..

Yes, I didn't mean God's Laws were barbaric. I reasoned differently.

I think PS was more calling the people of the time and place more barbaric, and so God "accommodated" with more "barbaric" laws to whack them into place.