New Beginnings

The 6, 7, 8 cycle has been put in terms of the initial six, the number of "human effort" - the number seven the representation of the perfection found in God and the eighth position which is the result of the man (six) colliding with the seventh (God, or the gospel truth) which results in an eighth, that is either a divinely authored progression of the believer, or the satanically derived rejection of God (or the gospel) that is the position of the spiritually dead or "not redeemed" resprectively.

The idea is that the eighth is the start of the "new week" of the first day of a new and following six; and that the believer will continue in approval of God in those six until the colision with the seven recurrs, or will fall out of favour in rejecting the ministrations of the gospel or the commandments of God.

The choice of "six, seven, eight" comes from the passage "the eighth is of the seven" in revelation. However as it presents itself we may also equivocate in the trinity of three, a "2, 3, 4 cycle". I.e.where the "four" is the start of a new triple, and we have modulo 3 the set {0,1,2}. Here the "four", the result of a "new beginning" is 1 modulo 3, as opposed to the "rest" which is 0 modulo 3. The "two" would be the "starting position" that approaches or avoids God in the "three", and is the inverse of the "1" in that "1"+ "2" = "3" = "0".

We could expect that the rest found in Christ is not reached by "striving" or "works" - that the action of continual increments aside from the rest "0" found in God leads to the continual repeat of the cycle. We also have the benefit that there is no "gap" of two through five.

Does it make sense to state that the "fourth is of the three"? We started with only three! Where would the fourth come from? If the phrase would indicate the "fourth is either one of 0, 1 or 2 then I would be satisfied! Yet "the eighth is of the seven" would indicate the eighth must be a rehash of any arbitrary one of the initial seven, and this is not the context of the passage in revelation. There is a synthesis in view, but the "6, 7, 8 cycle" is a misnomer on that basis, which is unfortuneate.

In revelation the "eighth" is a survivor of the seven that has mingled with each of the seven through history - and is the loosing of restraint on satans desire to leaven the churches - the little horn or state of Israel is the source of every device that has ever been applied against them, and it would make no sense to state that Israel is "one of the seven" (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome or the USA.).

Likewise although the image system is able to be placed as any one of the seven churches (given philadelphia is replaced with the source of leaven and the false prophet is then replaced with the image, which may leaven with false doctrine from any one position of the refining churches also.) If the image is itself the "eighth of the seven" then there is no historical sense of the little horn bringing in the false doctrine. If the scarlet beast is indeed the image, then we would be confusing the seven kingdoms which are the heads on the dragon (the ten horns on the beast) with the five refining churches, the source of leaven and the image. The image is of ten kings, not seven kingdoms.

The image to the beast is such that three of ten kings are chosen to leaven any one of the seven "churches" under the remaining kings. It is not true that three kings take the place of one of the seven: The image is positioned over all seven, and is not "one of the seven". It is however the case that over any individual church the remaining "six kings" follow as with one mind the judgements of the image on each particular case of the seven "churches". The woman that rides the image is the "seventh" - the conglomerate of the laodicean five and the source of leaven, as shown completely leavened. The "eighth" is system of the image and beast in fornication, deadly wound healed; but is not "one of the seven" itself, you see? (Especially if the "seventh" is truly the rest of God found in obedience to the letter to laodicea.)

Returning back to our "2, 3, 4 cycle" we may state;

That 2+1 = 3 and 3+1 = 1 etc, were we to state that "4 is the number of a new beginning" it would follow that the inverse of "1" which is "2" is also "-1" and we have an increment and a decrement respectively. One appears regenerative and the other regressive, although neither is equal to the "rest " of "0".

The sixth then we would equate to the decrement; and the seven to the rest of zero, and the eighth as the increment.

The sixth then as "cold" opposes the "hot" of the seventh and the result is the synthesis of the eighth or "lukewarm". In view is the formula that repeated striving (of the increment) or likewise of the decrement is either cold or lukewarm, but clearly the "rest" is not to be lukewarm, even if the cycle is regressive! We would state in that case that the third is stepped over and the fourth, is the result of a new increment, and a repeat of the cycle.

The cycle is not as C3, but as the "double mind" that maps 1 to -1 or back again in preference to rest as 0. When the rest of zero presents, the result is either to rest in Christ; or to increment "to strive without" or decrement "to backslide or resist" so that God's sabbath rest is either mapped to 1 or -1 respectively. The result is that the cycle repeats as if it were continual.

So with rest we have "hot", with an increment "cold" and with a decrement "lukewarm".

In view is not a "fourth" but that there is a choice for the individual from {0,1,2} to rest, reject or resist that follows the contact the individual has with the truth of the Gospel. The fourth in that sense is a "new beginning" and so one would expect the "eighth" to be similar on the same basis.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page