Open7

Is the modern church we see today, as in, a Sunday morning service a few songs from a band are played, notices, then a sermon, then a few more songs, then a chat in a cafe, do we see this in the Bible? I think the answer is no.

Does this make it wrong? Or not entirely wrong, but it’s not exactly the bullseye of what God intended? It’s maybe outside the bullseye, so it’s doing something, souls are being won over, but maybe it’s not quite Gods first choice?

What do people think?

36 minutes ago, Who me said:

As you rightl6 say no one is punished  for their parents  sins, but parents sins influence  and teach children how to live, so those same sins are perpetuated down the generations.

 

Tha Amalekites started hating Israel and continued  to hate Israel and were punished for that hatred.

Yes this is what I figured also. Thanks @Who me

7 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

If you read the last few chapters of I Samuel you will find that the Amalekites of Saul's and David's time were just as vicious and violent as their ancestors.

Hi @Deborah_ I have read this yes thanks. The point I made, was that it wasn’t the Amalekites of Saul’s time who punished Israel when they just came out of Egypt, so why did God lay the punishment on them for these sins when it wasn’t their sin? I know God can delay punishment sometimes, but because of the way it’s written, it sounds like future Amalekites are being directly punished for the sins of past Amalekites

In 1 Samuel 15:2-3 God asks Saul to wipe out the Amalekites because of what they did to Israel when they came out of Eqypt. But this happened hundreds of years prior, so why should these Amalekites in Saul’s day be punished for the Amalekites of the exodus generation?

Ezekiel 18:20 says that ‘The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son’. But I know also that in Exodus 20:5 it says how God visits the iniquity of the fathers to the children of the 3rd and 4th generation etc.

The best answer I’ve been able to think of, is that the Amalekites of Saul’s day were the same as the Amalekites of before, and they had not learned from the mistakes of their ancestors. But I don’t feel that satisfied still.

Can anyone help? I’ve been frustrated in not being able to find much help online for this

Thanks

1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

The number 7 is a symbol of completeness. So 7 churches stand for all the churches.

I'm not sure that every church can be identified precisely with one of the seven. But between them the letters cover a wide range of problems and threats - so it's likely that every church will find at least one or two elements in at least one of the letters that resonate with them.

Oh @Deborah_ this is just wonderful, what you said about 7, what an amazing revelation you have given me. No other explanations needed. Bless you. I needed a revelation today so much. Bless you. Much love

There were 7 churches Jesus wrote a letter to. It seems that these letters were like a report to these church’s on how they’ve done so far.

My question is, do these 7 churches serve as a model for all the churches there have ever been, in that every church is like one of those churches. Like the 7 churches are also 7 categories, and every church today fits into one of these. And because of this, every church can read these letters, and say ‘we are most like Sardis’ as an example, and therefore this is what we need to do to become stronger, because Jesus gave advice in the letter.

Would you say what I’ve said here is accurate or not?

With love

Thanks everyone, very helpful.

@Tristen and @Tzephanyahu thank you, brilliant responses that have opened my eyes to things I’ve missed. I often get blinded to see things in scripture and kick myself when I get the answers, I’m very thank for you guys and this website for helping me over the years

In Joshua 7, Israel fights against Ai but are beaten by them, because Achan took plunder from Jericho when he wasn’t suppose to, and so God wasn’t with them when they battled against Ai, and as a result, 36 men of Israel were killed.

Im trying to think of reasons why it was just that these men died, when it was Achan who sinned in the first place.

Struggling to think of good reasons. Any help? Thanks

36 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

It sounds a reasonable explanation. 

Thank you @Deborah_ you’ve been very helpful, wasn’t the easiest study but glad I kept wrestling. Bless you

18 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

The trial took place when he arrived at the city of refuge and was to determine whether he was guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter, or innocent. If it was murder, the avenger could execute him on the spot. If it was manslaughter, he had to stay in the city of refuge. If he was innocent, he could go home.  All this had nothing to do with the high priest. 

But the death of the current high priest - maybe many years later - marked the end of his sentence (indeed, it meant that everyone confined to cities of refuge were free to go home). He could always choose to stay there, of course (he might have put roots down, got married, etc). 

Thanks @Deborah_ I’ve done some more research and found more info, was hoping you could check my answer☺️ 

Your second paragraph here, where you said ‘marked the end of his sentence’ - are you referring to the a person guilty of manslaughter?

I assume you mean a person guilty of manslaughter, because out of the 3 potential verdicts 1. murderer (who would be killed) 2. manslaughter (would need to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest) and 3. the innocent (who would walk away free). It’s only the manslaughter person who would need to stay in the city until the death of the high priest right? The other two wouldn’t need to.

And after doing more research, I found a couple of people say why this is. The person who committed manslaughter, which as far as I can see, is an unintentional death, possibly from self defence, would have caused potential desire for retaliation from the killed persons family or loved ones. But the point of waiting until the death of the high priest for the man-slaughterer’s release, is that because “His death plunges the whole community into such distress that private sorrow is lost in the general affliction."

So basically, when the high priest dies, the nation as a whole are so upset, that they put aside their own personal sorrows or desires for revenge, and therefore, this is the time which the man-slaughterer is now safe to go free, hopefully at least.

Does this sound right to you?

1 hour ago, Deborah_ said:

The crime in question is manslaughter.  Murder was punishable by death. What lesser sentence would be appropriate in an age when there were no prisons? The cities of refuge were a form of internal exile. 

However, it wasn't a life sentence (many of these deaths would actually have been "accidental"). But there was no system of numbering years, and no overall government to keep tabs on these people to say when their "time" was up. So the judges couldn't impose a sentence of X number of years. 

The high priest was the one national figure, whose death would be widely publicised and known by everyone. Yes, it was arbitrary (some people would have unduly short sentences, and others over-long ones). But I think the main aim was to restrain the avenger so that the culprit wouldn't have to live in fear of his life. 

And then there is the reason that you mentioned at the beginning. The avenger could understand that a death had occurred, and be (hopefully) satisfied. 

Hi @Deborah_ thank you for this. This raised a couple of things for me.

It’s my understanding that the person who killed someone, whether accidental or not, would undergo some kind of trial, and this would determine whether or not they would go free, so I still don’t get why the death of a high priest would have any affect on this, again I’ll point out I see the foreshadow of Jesus death in this however.

Also, you mentioned at the end of your post, that the death of the high priest would hopefully satisfy the avenger, but how would this bring any satisfaction to them when one of their family members was killed?

15 hours ago, Mr. M said:

The full description for the cities of refuge is found in Numbers 35. The slayer is not remanded into custody in the city of refuge, he can leave at any time, but at the risk of facing the avenger of blood. The high priest is responsible for the sanctity of the land. Therefore, here is the concern.

Numbers 35:33 So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. 

34 Therefore do not defile the land which you inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel.

The lifetime of the high priest represents a "cooling off" period for the avenger of blood. But if at any time the slayer is found outside the city of refuge, he forfeits his protection. This is somewhat complicated, but the point is to avoid the shedding of innocent blood. If the slayer is put to death by the avenger outside the bounds of his protection, his bloodshed is no longer "innocent", as he walked in disobedience to the Law. 

Thanks @Mr. M I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you say cooking off period. What if the priest happen to die the day after someone accidentally killed someone and was in a city of refugee for just a few hours? They can then leave?

I’m reading Joshua 20, which talks about the cities of refuge for Israel. I’ll just take the assumption that you know what these were and not explain it all.

My question is, why did they need to wait until the death of the high priest for the slayer to be released? I know that it points to Jesus and is a for-shadow of when Jesus died, we would then have refuge in him. But what was the reason for them needing to wait for the high priest to die?

Thanks

21 minutes ago, Who me said:

The brutal answer is what is more important a mans soul and life or the life of an animal?

 

To preserve an animals live, how many people are you willing to have die?

 

The animal sacrifices in the bible, would you, if you lived then happily see killed a lamb every year so you could worship God?

Hi @Who me. Thanks for this response! Great answer! I didn’t consider this before, but yes, this is a great way to justify this. Very helpful.

Thanks again

In Joshua 11:9 it talks of how Joshua hamstrung horses from Gods command, and does elsewhere in the Bible with David. What about the horses life? Is this not cruel? I trust God btw, but I’m just trying to understand how this is justified.

I have read up on this and can see why it makes sense for Israel, but what about the horses life?

Thanks

2 hours ago, Selah7 said:

Could you provide a scripture that says that the Hivites “ended up following God later?”

I @Selah7 thank you for your longer message. Actually the last line your wrote on that message might be the key to my confusion.

”Did these people want to join Joshua's religion and serve the true God?  No”

I have been under the impression the whole time that the Gibeonites ended up having a fear of the lord, based off some of the things they said in Joshua 9, in combination with a commentary I read which I’m now questioning. So if indeed what you mentioned is true, that they never loved God, then my issue is not an issue anymore, funny how they seemed to deceive me also😬. Well if that’s the case then problem solved, it was really bugging me this and sometimes I miss what might seem obvious.

You've helped me a lot @Selah7

Hi all, after looking at this more I realise I’m still not satisfied. Apologies if I’m not getting it from the comments. Here’s what I’m stuck on.

The law states to not make a covenant with any nation in Canaan (Exodus 34:15). However they do, and it seemed that the Gibeonites had a fear of God.

If this is the case, they why did God devote all the inhabitants of Canaan to death, when later on, the law was broken and the Gibeonites feared God as a result.

This then seems that there was hope for some of the people in Canaan after, but it took the breaking of the law to reveal this. If God knew this all along, why did he say they should all be wiped out in the first place?

Thanks

6 hours ago, kwikphilly said:

Blessings ..

This lesson clearly shows God's Grace and Mercy- the Gebeonites ( Hivites) we're in fact a tribe of mighty warriors but when they had seen what the Israelites did to the others they feared the God of Israel and laid down their shields & swords looking for Peace instead,

It is true that they tricked the Israelites but the fact that they feared God ,Revered Him and even served God with their own workmanship God Showed them Mercy and by His Grace they were Forgiven( sound familiar?❤️)

Also,good to remember that God Has ForeKnowledge,I Believe He Knew that these people would repent,lay down their arms and serve Him in spite of how it came about- We Serve a God of Love,Compassion and Mercy 

So the story isn't so much about what Israel was supposed to do but more about God's Mercy towards the ones who had a change of heart

I hope that helps

With love in Christ, Kwik

 

Super helpful Kwik, thanks so much this helps a lot

In Joshua 9, Israel have just entered the promised land and are looking to wipe out all the nations there, but in this chapter one of the nations deceives Israel by pretending they are from a distant land so Israel doesn’t attack them. Long story short, this nation deceives Israel and they end up joining them, becoming woodcutters and doing various tasks for them.

I read in a commentary that compares this nation to rehab, in that they became a part of Israel. This is all good so far.

But, what I don’t understand is that God originally wanted all these nations to be wiped out it seemed, but as we can see, there was a nation who ended up submitting to Israel and becoming a part of them, as far as I know then, becoming followers of the God of Israel.

So it seems that God was originally going to wipe out a nation that actually would end up knowing him. It said in verse 14 that Israel didn’t consult God about letting them join them.

From what I can see this nation was called the Hivites, it says in Deuteronomy 20:17 that the hivites should be destroyed. But why? When they ended up following God later?

Hope I have explained this well enough. Thanks

Hi all, been studying Matthew 24 this last week. In verses 42-51 Jesus talks about how we should be ready for his return and living out his will. But what if in the moment he comes, we are slipping up and currently sinning? It says in verse 50-51

the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

I don’t really understand this. If you are saved, and caught sinning, would you not avoid this punishment?

Thanks

19 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

He might know it now. We don't know, because He won't tell us even if He does.

As He said to His disciples just before His ascension, "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by His own authority." (Acts 1:7)

Yes. I’m also thinking, perhaps God did not reveal this to Jesus, because he needed this to be a secret, and to have nothing in the Bible that people could use to figure out when Jesus was coming again.

If that is the case, it shows how serious God was in not revealing this information, because if he did, it would change so much in the Christian world and in our culture, I would think for the worse

3 hours ago, Deborah_ said:

I think there are too aspects to this question:

1) When Jesus was on earth, was He omniscient?

2) Why didn't He know this very important piece of information in particular?

 

1) God is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. Jesus is God, so surely He should be all these things as well? But hang on a minute, when He became man He wasn't omnipresent - He could only be in one place at a time. We don't generally have a problem with that. And He probably wasn't omniscient while He was on earth either - because how could all the knowledge in the universe (let alone outside it) be stored in one human brain? What we do see is that He had access to the power and knowledge of the Father at all times. He was given the power to do miracles through the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38), and He was given knowledge through the Spirit in the same way, as and when He needed it.

2) And He didn't need to know when He would come back! Surely the point that He is making is that it is not for human beings to know the future in such detail - because such knowledge distorts our decision-making. If not even Jesus knew the date of His return, then it's not important for us to know either.

I like this. So, could this mean that Jesus didn’t know the time back then, but, he might know now?

In Matthew 24:36, it says that only the father knows when Jesus will come back, not even the angels or even Jesus.

I’m wondering why Jesus wouldn’t be told this? I’ve searched Google and it just comes up with articles talking about how he humbled himself to become man and therefore doesn’t necessarily know things. But that doesn’t really help me.

For what reason has God decided to keep this from Jesus? The information is kept from us, so that we would be ready, could it be a similar reason for Jesus?

On 12/7/2022 at 3:31 PM, Jayne said:

I have found that in my past as a young person, when I desired a "sign" that something I wanted would be mine or come to pass....

.....EVERYTHING became a sign!  And that was because I had already determined in my heart that what I wanted was what I wanted.  And that I deserved it.

So, I MADE things a "sign".

So glad I departed a long time ago from that idiocy.

You worded this perfectly😊

4 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

Hi @Open7,

I agree that looking for or acting upon "signs" can be a dangerous thing.  It's closer to divination that walking the path of righteousness and one opens themselves up to being led away by their heart rather than the truth.

We must remember that desire drove Eve rather than deceit...

"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it." - Genesis 3

So in some ways, the tree was a sign for Eve which, of course, backfired.

In my experience, I tend to notice Yahweh's interaction in my life AFTER the event.  I can then look back and realise with wonder how precious and fragile each decision and move was to lead to that perfect scenario.  Perhaps Yahweh works like this as if He gave us signs to respond to we would most likely mess up our reactions and choices in our response!  So perhaps He works behind the scenes in our lives for our own benefit.

Scripturally speaking, there are very few "signs" given by Yahweh ahead of choice.  An each instance can pretty much be argued as unique and exceptions - rather than a standard way of interaction.  What I do see as a standard way of operation in the Scriptures is the silent guidance of the heart, providing we are willing to listen to the truth of conviction...

"Your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying, “This is the way, walk in it,” Whenever you turn to the right hand, Or whenever you turn to the left." - Isaiah 30

How interest in contrasts with Eve's 'seeing', rather we should be 'listening'.  Not only listening to the Holy Spirit, but also to the Scriptures themselves.

Peace.

Super helpful thanks so much. Amazing insight on Eve in the garden