Temple Mount: Jerusalem's most holy site has nothing to do with Judaism, Unesco rules

does UNESCO think the Temple was located? Nyack, NJ.

After an intensive study of numerology from the OT historical books and the Book of Revelation, and after a divine revelation from the Spirit (“for I did not receive it or learn it from any human source; instead I received it by a revelation of Jesus Christ;” Gal 1:12), it is now clear to me the Temple Mount was actually located in Orting, Washington. How could we have been so blind for so long?

God bless the UK, US, Germany, Netherlands, Lithuanian, Estonia for supporting truth and voting against the resolution.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: “May they prosper who love you. -Psalm 122:6

I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. -Genesis 12:3

David R. Brumbelow

Just for the purpose of being to the point, I’d love to see how a U.N. resolution accusing Jews of the blood libel (of using the blood of Gentile children to make Passover matzo) would fare….I’m guessing disturbingly well, sad to say. Really, this ought to be our signal to leave the United Nations and quite frankly blow the place up. It’s not as if Titus didn’t have notes of what he destroyed when he sacked Jerusalem in 70AD.

Brother Brumbelow:

Would you be able to provide comment on why you quoted Genesis 12:3 in your comment @ 8:29 CDT on 10/17/2016?

The reason why I’m asking is that the most straight-forward interpretation of that passage would indicate that those who bless and curse Abraham will receive a reward in proportion to what action they make.

Since there is a difference between Abraham, Jacob (the person Israel), and Israel (nation), I believe that the most literal interpretation of that passage would apply to Abraham only. Is there an exegetical reason to expand the blessing and cursing any further than what is given?

I am not a Hebrew expert, but could be persuaded given the right grammatical argument that the “you” in Genesis 12:3 refers to either Jacob or the nation.

John, I remember asking Kevin Bauder that very question a few years back, and his response was that in light of how Isaac was chosen instead of Ishmael, and how Jacob was chosen instead of Esau, and in light of the Old Testament’s emphasis on Israel as inheriting God’s promises to Abraham, that we ought to assume that God’s promises to Abraham, including Genesis 12:3, are fulfilled in great part in Jacob/Israel.

[Rob Fall]

does UNESCO think the Temple was located? Nyack, NJ.

I thought Nyack was in New York :-). Maybe there is one in New Jersey too.

Genesis 12

2 I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.
3 I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you;
And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Why does the blessing and curse refer to more than just Abraham?

1. God said I will make you a great nation. The “you” and “nation” are used synonymously. The “you” does not only refer to Abraham, but looks to the future and his descendants. See also Genesis 17:5-8; etc.
2. I will bless you and make your name great. “Your name” would refer to both Abraham individually, as well as his descendants and the nation of Israel. While Abraham had other descendants, the nation of Israel was specifically chosen by God, and specifically blessed and preserved by God.
3. You shall be a blessing. This looks to the future. In a very real sense, even today when we are a blessing, that blessing can continue long after we are gone. Blessings in our descendants and because of the continuation of our ministry.
4. In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. The “you” referred directly to Abraham, but also to his descendants as they blessed the world through Scripture, salvation, and the Savior Jesus Christ. Israelis continue to bless the world today.
5. It is clear in Genesis 12 that God had both the individual Abraham, and Abraham’s descendants in mind. Once again, God makes this clear in v. 7. Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” -Genesis 12:7
6. So it stands to reason if the promise to Abraham was both to him and his descendants in these other areas, this was also true with the blessing and the curse. See also Genesis 12:7

In addition, this same promise of blessing and curse is used later in Scripture to refer to descendants of Abraham. So, the people of the Old Testament understood this blessing and curse to refer, not just to Abraham, but to his children.

Isaac said to Jacob

Genesis 27:29

Cursed be everyone who curses you,
And blessed be those who bless you!”

Balaam, admittedly not one of the more consistent prophets, said

Numbers 24:9

“Blessed is he who blesses you,
And cursed is he who curses you.”

This prophetic word of Balaam seems to be confirmed by God in Numbers 22:12.

God said of Israel

Deuteronomy 30:7

“Also the Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you.

Psalm 122:6 is really saying the same. Those who bless and love Jerusalem – will be blessed and prosper.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: May they prosper who love you. -Psalm 122:6

So yes, I and many, many others believe Genesis 12:2-3 refers to Abraham, and his descendants. I believe it refers to the Jews of today. I believe one of the reasons God has blessed America is because we have been a friend to Israel and the Jewish people.

David R. Brumbelow

What do you expect from a Californian whose folks haven’t been east of Cincinnati in a hundred and fifty years. To me, Denver Colorado is “back East”.

[Steve Davis]

Rob Fall wrote:

does UNESCO think the Temple was located? Nyack, NJ.

I thought Nyack was in New York :-). Maybe there is one in New Jersey too.

….but Rob’s comments about “Denver is back east” remind me of time living in LA for two summers (Torrance/Redondo Beach/El Segundo) and noting that for many of the Californians I interacted with—keep in mind I went to a mostly Chinese church there that had services in English—Taiwan, Singapore, and Beijing were more relevant than was anywhere east of “Lost Wages”.

It appears to be in New York, by the way. Looks like something of a nice place, a town that ought not suffer the depredations of the United Nations. And for that matter, it’s kinda amazing that the U.N. manages to survive in a town so well filled by people who, to put it mildly, have a strong historical memory of how offensive all those U.N. resolutions against Israel are. One would at least expect demonstrations or something.

Thank you Brother Brumbelow for the gracious response. It was very kind of you to take the time.

I fully understand your conclusions of the meaning of verse 3 from a systematic theological perspective.

My concern is whether or not a similar understanding of this verse can be arrived at from a strict exegetical standpoint. The hang up concerns the pronoun use. The KJV renders the passage (with pronoun case):

1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee (sing.) out of thy (sing.) country, and from thy (sing.) kindred, and from thy (sing.) father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee (sing.): 2 And I will make of thee (sing.) a great nation, and I will bless thee (sing.) , and make thy (sing.) name great; and thou (sing.) shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them (plur.) that bless thee (sing.), and curse him (sing.) that curseth thee(sing.): and in thee (sing.) shall all families of the earth be blessed.

In this translation, the singular and plural of the subjects and objects are very clear. A second person plural object (as the case would be if the verse was to refer to a nation) would have demanded a “you” instead of “thee.” However, the English grammar the KJV employs does not support the idea of a plural second person object. All other English translations obfuscate this analysis since the 2nd person singular and plural object pronouns are both “you.”

What would be great to know (admitting that I know no Hebrew) is whether the verb/pronoun case use in this verse in the original language supports a plural object. If it does not, the nagging question remains - If God had meant a second person plural object of the blessing or cursing, then why did He not record it as so? The Genesis 27:29 reference has the same problem.

I believe in plenary inspiration. One of the consequences of this is that things like verb tense and case and pronoun case matter a lot. Plenary inspiration also warrants that we be very, very cautious about systematic theology, since careless use of it can unnecessarily force scripture upon itself.