Several prophetic passages appear to describe a sequence involving Israel’s regathering, a global invasion, and divine intervention. I’m trying to understand whether these are meant to be read as one unified future event, and specifically whether the intervention is identified with the return of Jesus. **1. Regathering of Israel:** >Ezekiel 36:24 — “I will take you from the nations… and bring you into your own land.” **2.Invasion by Nations** >On that day, when all the nations of the earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves.(Zechariah 12:3) **3. Divine intervention involving the Mount of Olives:** >On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south. 5 You will flee by my mountain valley, for it will extend to Azel. You will flee as you fled from the earthquake[a] in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.(Zechariah 14:4) **4. Recognition of the one who was pierced:** >“They will look on me whom they have pierced…”(Zechariah 12:10) Within futurist interpretations, are these passages understood as describing the same end-time event, and is the one standing on the Mount of Olives in Zechariah 14 identified with Jesus Christ—meaning that the splitting of the Mount of Olives occurs at His return as part of God’s intervention during the invasion of Israel?

There is a religious group that believes that angels were pre-existent as humans. While researching the Scriptures to examine that, I found this quote, which confirms what I personally found in my own study: >Though the doctrine of angels holds an important place in the Word of God, it is often viewed as a difficult subject because, while there is abundant mention of angels in the Bible, the nature of this revelation is without the same kind of explicit description we often find with other subjects developed in the Bible: Every reference to angels is incidental to some other topic. They are not treated in themselves. God’s revelation never aims at informing us regarding the nature of angels. https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels I didn't find anything of usefulness to this topic in the OT. This is what I found so far in the NT, which is why I think the verses address the nature of angels. - Matt. 13:38-39: > "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." That verse is about the final judgement, of all the men on earth. How can the angels, then, be the reapers? - Matt. 16:27 > "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." This implies that the angels are a separate class of creation than man. - Matt. 22:30 > "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This says they are as the angels in heaven: that is, *like* them, not that they *become* them. - Matt. 24:36 > "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." This is saying no man knows, no angel knows, only the Father knows, differentiating the beings. - Luke 12:9 > "But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God." Luke 20:36 > "Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." equal unto - become *like* angels, not *become* angels. - 1 Cor. 4:9 > "For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." 1 Cor. 6:3 > "Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" Indeed, many believe that man will ultimately be higher than the angels. Two separate orders of creation. - Heb. 2:16: > "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham." 2 different natures. - Jude 1:6 > "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." Kept not their first estate. Not their second estate. **Now my question**: since the OT really didn't address, as far as I could see (and I welcome anyone else's findings), I wondered if, and what, the ancient Jewish scholars wrote about concerning the nature of angels. They might have been privy to lost documents, or just understood the Hebrew differently than we do today. I am not looking for denominational positions, just really information that any OT or ancient religious history scholars on this site might have. Thanks.

When you read Numbers 25 and then view the middle east through that lens….. the actions of the middle east don’t feel as extreme. I definitely do not agree with the extremes of the middle east culture, but I am also shocked and dismayed at the extremes of what are written in Numbers 25. Yet God said…. > 4 ……. “Take all the leaders of the people and execute[b] them in broad daylight before the LORD so that his burning anger may turn away > from Israel.” > > 7 …….Aaron the priest, saw this, he got up from the assembly, took a > spear in his hand, 8 followed the Israelite man into the tent,[c] and > drove it through both the Israelite man and the woman—through her > belly. > > 11 …….Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the Israelites > because he was zealous among them with my zeal,[d] so that I did not > destroy the Israelites in my zeal.* > > 17 “Attack the Midianites and strike them dead. 18 For they attacked > you with the treachery that they used against you in the Peor > incident. How do I as a Christian, defend this to a nonbeliever (or someone who questions Christianity). “This” being the fact that the God I serve, directed this….condoned this….. and rewarded this.

How was tithing done in the Old and New Testaments? In the New Testament, it seems it was put in the γαζοφυλάκιον or "treasury" (cf. Mk. 12:41,43 & Lk. 21:1 , the parable of the widow's offering). But in either Testaments, were tithes ever give directly to individual priests, or were they only given to the priests collectively? If an individual priest received a tithe, was he obliged to put it in the "treasury", or did priests have individual "accounts"?

In Genesis 2:2–3, God rests on the seventh day and blesses and sanctifies it. However, the explicit command to observe the Sabbath does not appear until Exodus 16 and is formally given in the Decalogue in Exodus 20:8–11. Does Genesis imply that the sanctification of the seventh day functioned as an ordinance for humanity from creation? Or is the Sabbath understood in Christian theology to have been instituted later, particularly within the Mosaic covenant?

In Genesis 8:8–12, Noah sends out a dove that returns with an olive leaf, signaling peace, renewal, and the end of God’s judgment through the Flood. In the Gospels (e.g., Matthew 3:16), the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus “like a dove” at His baptism, marking the beginning of His ministry. Within Christian theology, is the dove in Noah’s account understood as a foreshadowing or symbolic parallel to the dove appearing at Christ’s baptism? Do major Christian traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant theology) interpret these events as typologically connected, or are they generally treated as sharing symbolic imagery without an intended theological link? I am interested in answers grounded in Christian doctrinal teaching, historical theology, or respected theological commentary.

Union with Christ is a central doctrine in Reformed Theology, and concerns the mystical union of the believer with Christ, by faith and by the Holy Spirit. In faith the Spirit unites us to Christ, and that union is the means by which Christ's saving work is applied to us, it is the power of regeneration, and the basis on which the earthly church can and should be united. While there may be a sense in which all of the elect are united to Christ even before they come to faith, this Union is normally spoken about in reference to our temporal experience of God's grace: the unbelieving elect person is not yet united to Christ, but instead we are united to Christ when we are given new life, the power to have faith, and freed from sin, or in other words, saved. (Though there is a logical order, the *ordo salutis*, from our perspective we experience these things concurrently.) So here we come to my question: Does Reformed Theology teach that the Old Testament saints were personally united to Christ in this same way? Reformed theologians have traditionally taught Covenant Theology, where the various Biblical covenants, including the Old (Mosaic) and the New, are seen as aspects of the one eternal Covenant of Grace. So the Westminster Confession says: > WCF 7.6: Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. **There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.** > > WCF 8.6: Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet **the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated into the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world**, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and for ever. These paragraphs would seem to indicate that yes, the OT saints were united to Christ in the same way as NT Christians are. But it's not explicit, and there are some factors which would argue against it. First is that at Pentecost there seems to have been a fundamental change of state for the disciples whom the Holy Spirit came upon. Before that moment Jesus's disciples had faith, and the faith of the Christian is the same faith as that of Abraham (Romans 4:16). But the indwelling presence of the Spirit seems like something new; indeed Peter in Acts 2:16-21 says that the Spirit's coming upon them is the fulfilment of Joel 2:28-32, this "pouring out" of the Spirit being something new from the perspective of the OT prophets. When Paul describes the blessings of Israel in Romans 9:4-5 the Spirit is not one of them. A second factor is that the NT consistently describes the Spirit's indwelling as permanent. Several verses describe the Spirit as our guarantee of the rest of God's blessings (2 Cor 1:22, 2 Cor 5:5, Eph 1:13-14). In contrast the OT often speaks of the Spirit departing from someone or being taken from them (Judges 16:20, 1 Sam 16:14, Ps 51:11, Is 59:21), and many times when the Spirit comes to someone (Judges 3:10, 6:34, Ezek 2:2), it comes to someone we would most naturally describe as already having faith. Now there are many ways those verses are understood, but I've often heard it said (though not necessarily by Reformed teachers) that the indwelling of saints in the OT was only temporary, instead of the permanent indwelling Christians receive. So how does Reformed Theology understand the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Old Testament believer, and whether those believers should best be described as being personally united to Christ? ---------------- It is conceivable that Reformed Baptists may have a different answer to Reformed Paedobaptists as many of them reject Covenant Theology and would not say that there was only one covenant that applied equally to Old and New Testament saints. If this is the case, a good answer would explain the position of both Reformed Baptists and Paedobaptists.

In Genesis 12:10–20, during a famine, Abraham (Abram) goes to Egypt and tells Pharaoh that Sarah is his sister because he fears he will be killed on account of her beauty. Pharaoh takes her into his house, and God intervenes by sending plagues before she is returned. Later, in Genesis 20:1–18, Abraham again identifies Sarah as his sister while sojourning in Gerar. King Abimelech takes her, and God warns him in a dream, after which Sarah is restored to Abraham. Given that Abraham is later commended in Scripture as a model of faith (e.g., Romans 4; Hebrews 11), how should Christians understand these repeated episodes? What do these narratives teach about the relationship between fear and faith in a believer’s life?

I was going through the Bible and came across Daniel 4 which is about a vision King Nebuchadnezzar gets and as a result he calls Daniel to interpret. The dream ends up being a prophecy about how God is going to humble King Nebuchadnezzar which eventually comes to pass 12 months later. However, the way King Nebuchadnezzar acts towards the end is what makes me think he received salvation. He says this: > *34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I > honored and glorified him who lives forever. > > His dominion is an eternal dominion; > his kingdom endures from generation to generation. 35 All the peoples of the earth > are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases > with the powers of heaven > and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand > or say to him: “What have you done?” > > 36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor > were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and > nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even > greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and > glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and > all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to > humble.* From this we see that in the end, Nebuchadnezzar believed in God and acknowledged him as the most high. Not only this, but also he says: > Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is always right and his ways are just Here, he shows conversion and faith in God. However, the bible repeatedly emphasizes that we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith and that it is faith that justifies us.(Ephesians 2:8-9 , [Galatians 3:11]). It is also seen that following the law is not what saved people in the Old Covenant but it was faith in God that saves people and the function of the law was to let us acknowledge our sin and guide people until Jesus came (Romans 3:20 , Galatians 3:24 , Isaiah 45:22-24 . The Bible then goes on to use Abraham as an example in Romans 4:3 saying that Abraham was justified by his faith and he clarifies in Romans 3:23-24 and Galatians 3:8-9 where it says that this extends to anyone who has faith in God. So with all this in mind, is it a possibility that King Nebuchadnezzar ended up receiving salvation after acquiring his faith in God as sovereign and the one above all, including what he describes as *powers of heaven*, which could maybe be understood as him exalting God above all other known lesser gods?

### Background *Sola Scriptura* is commonly defined as follows > **The Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for faith** (alternatively doctrine) **and practice.** Protestant discussions about the scriptural basis for *Sola Scriptura* nearly always involve 2 Timothy 3:16 and other NT verses, but I have not seen Protestants argue for for *Sola Scriptura* on the basis of the Hebrew Bible. ### Question Do Protestants believe the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament taught *Sola Scriptura* prior to the advent of Christianity and the writing of the New Testament? If so, which passages teach this? If not, how do they explain this doctrine only being introduced by the New Testament?

Joshua 24:31 (ESV) states: > Israel served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua and had known all the work that the LORD did for Israel. However, based on evidence from Judges 18 (where the tribe of Dan took up Micah's idolatry), events in the previously mentioned chapter may have occurred during Joshua’s lifetime (Judges 18:1/Joshua 18:2, Judges 18:27/Joshua 19:47, and Judges 18:31/Joshua 19:51). Is it possible that these events occurred after Joshua’s death, and before Dan took possession of their inheritance? Or does the parallel explanation of the Laish takeover rule that out? How can the two, seemingly contradictory, passages be reconciled?

Acts 15:29 and 21:25 carry over four requirements from the old testament to apply to gentile Christians - one of which is abstaining from sexual immorality. In Leviticus 20:18, it makes a big deal about having sex with a woman while she's on her period. > If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and uncovers her nakedness, he has made naked her fountain, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from among their people. (ESV) However, Leviticus 15:24 makes it sound more like a ceremonial issue than a sexual immorality issue (which in that case may be a requirement which has passed away under the new covenant). > And if any man lies with her and her menstrual impurity comes upon him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean (ESV) So the question is, what is the Biblical basis for claiming that a Christian husband is/is not permitted to have sex with his wife when she's on her period?

In Exodus 3, God speaks to Moses from the burning bush and says, “*I AM WHO I AM”* (Exodus 3:14). According to Trinitarian theology, which Person of the Trinity is understood to be speaking here—the Father, the Son (as a pre-incarnate appearance), or the Holy Spirit? What biblical or theological arguments support this interpretation?

After the death of Solomon the nation of Israel divided into two: the northern kingdom ruled by Jeroboam, which was called Israel, and the southern kingdom ruled by Rehoboam, which was called Judah. The reign lengths and regnal data in I and II Kings seemed and seem entirely confused. No Bible student could arrive at a credible explanation of the data until the 20th century. The first one was Valerius Coucke: in the 1920s he came up with a solution to the problems of what appeared conflicting data in the reign lengths of the kings. Unfortunately, because he published in French, his work went largely unnoticed in the English speaking world. In the 1950s Dr Edwin Thiele published the fruits of his doctorate, "Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings". Later, Rodger Young slightly modified Edwin Thiele's results, in consequence of which the work of Valerius Coucke and ET/RY are in agreement, and both now place the Exodus from Egypt in 1446 BC. It is this consensus chronology which is used in Andrew Steinmann's "From Abraham to Paul - a Biblical Chronology". Both systems rely on interpretting some of the data so that reign-lengths are measured using years starting in Tishri, while other reign-lengths are measured from Nisan. My question is, what is the evidence that the recorders of the reigns in I and II Kings are sometimes using years beginning in Tishri? Does this evidence exist, or can the data be interpretted without needing to use years starting in Tishri?

My friend is a Progressive Christian who says that the bible doesn't condemn or even mention sex outside of marriage in the bible. Is this true? If not, what is the Biblical basis for condemning sex outside of marriage?

Most Christians and leaders seem to quote inspirational verses out of the prophetic books consistently. The issue is that they are taking lots of verses out of context. Recently, I've been wondering how we correctly read the 17 prophetic books. These books seem to only be written for 1. the people at the time 2. descriptions of the Messiah 3. descriptions of The New Heaven and New Earth Outside of this, I have also seen that these prophecies include 1. Double References (Isaiah 14 talking about Satan and a king) 2. Insight into God's Creation (Jeremiah 4) [the Book of Job also does this, but that would of course be poetry and not prophecy] 3. Showing the character and demonstrations of God But what exactly does someone do when they want to read through the Book of Ezekiel or any other book? I have oftentimes been led of the Holy Spirit to see new things in the Prophetic Books, but for the most part, if I have to be honest, it seems like the entire Body of Christ just steers away from these books because of the level of confusion that comes from reading them. Why are they in the Bible? What do they do for New Testament Believers? How does it bring us into the full stature of Christ (2 Timothy 3:16-17)? I understand that there is historical evidence for the prophecies and that we can see what makes God angry, but there has got to be more reasoning behind having 17 books written in this style than just those things. What should I be able to pick up from these books that is beyond what my eyes can see? I cannot find a single answer online, so please know that I did my research before posting here. Thank you.

In Ezekiel chapter 4 the prophet was instructed to lie on his left side for 390 days, a day for each year of the sin of Israel, and then to lie on his right side for 40 days for the sin of Judah. What historical period is being referred to here? When did the 390 years begin and end? Also for the 40 year period, when did it begin and end?

Job 26:10 (KJV) says: >"He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end." This verse has also been translated as: >"He hath set a compass upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." (alternative rendering from some KJV printings) The phrase "compassed the waters with bounds" or “set a compass” seems to describe God establishing a limit or boundary over the waters. I’m trying to understand what this means. What is the Hebrew word translated as “bounds” or “limit” in this verse, and what are its possible interpretations?

### Introduction The NT presents Jesus of Nazareth as the **unique Son of God** in John 3:16: > For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son (**μονογενης υιος, monogenēs huios**), that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. The concept of a single 'son of God' is seemingly not found in the Hebrew bible. The phrase **bene-elohim/בְּנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים** (sons of God) are referenced several times in different contexts. Several named characters such as Satan are called **bene-elohim**, such as in Job 1:6: > "One day the **sons of God** (**בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים, bene-elohim**) came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them." ### Question What is the Old Testament basis for believing that God has a single, unique son?

In Exodus 4:22, God tells Pharaoh: >“Israel is my firstborn son.” Later, in the New Testament, believers in Christ (the Church) are described as being adopted into God’s family and as the bride of Christ (Romans 8:15–17, Ephesians 5:25–27). My question is: if Israel is explicitly called God’s firstborn, how should Christians understand the place of the Church? Does the term “firstborn” imply that the Church is “another child” of God, perhaps a “later-born,”? How do different traditions reconcile Israel’s “firstborn” status with the identity of the Church in salvation history?