The callousness of Israel [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

joel

09-15-2007, 02:50 PM

The diversity of opinions regarding the future of Israel on this forum is quite amazing.

So, I have concluded that I may as well add my view, as this has caused me to re-think my beliefs, over and over again. I find that, however, there has no concrete presentation that has caused to move away from that which I have held for some time.........and that is.....God is not finished with the nation of Israel.

Paul's teachings in Romans 9, 10 & 11 of Romans is the most definitve of presentations that you will find of all of scripture that lays out God's dealings with His covenant people.

Paul refers to them in Romans 9:3 as "my kinsmen according to the flesh;". When we read the 3 chapters, do we look at them as speaking to individuals, or to them as a "people"?

I would assert that his emphasis is national, and not individual.

There is a secret that he reveals in chapter 11 that explains their current "unbelief"......it is that God has calloused them.....(vs.25).....they have been blinded so that they cannot belief.

This condition will be persistent (and has continued up unitil the present) until another significant event occurs........."the fullness of the Gentiles be come in."

God's covenant with them has not been terminated......"For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (vs. 27).

The taking away of sins will be the same for them, as it is for the Gentiles who believe....it establishes a standing before God. But, a standing is not an end in itself. It is but a beginning of a life of serviced unto God.

To the Jews it will be a re-establishment. It will be a reconciliation that is reflective of the reconciliation that God is working with all of humanity.

During the next era, they (the Jews) will function on the earth consistent with their calling. They were chosen, they will be called.

The body of Christ consists of those who were chosen (the election) to believe in Christ during this era. There is a calling and an inheritance that is applicable to the members of His body. This is not the calling and inheritance that the Jewish nation, having the callousness removed, and having the fulfillment of the promises of the New Covenant fulfilled within them, will enjoy.

There is a difference. And there is a purpose for the difference between the called out assembly during this era, and the called out assembly during the next.

There are differences in the preparatory change that will occur within members of the body, and the overcomers of the next era. The differences can be seen in the composition of bodies. We, the membes of HIs body, will receive new bodies. Those of Israel will not receive the same......they will receive a new heart....the law of God will be written within them.....they will receive the spirit in such a magnitude that they will be enabled to obey Christ and be His servants on this earth.

The calling of the body of Christ is heavenly, not earthly.

If we differentiate those things which differ, and not mix them together, nor eliminate one because we have failed to see the difference, we influence the inheritance of those who are struggling to come to grips with these issues. Paul makes the distinctions, and we are to grasp them, and hold on to them.

Joel

shalag

09-16-2007, 10:49 AM

Joel - I agree with you for the most part. I definitely don't understand most of Revelation (and I don't believe at this point that it is fulfilled - or past) - - but God established 12 tribes, chose 12 apostles, and (is) sealing 144,000. This number is specific, and in Revelation 7 (Zayin/Sabbath) it applies to the tribes of Israel.
Revelation 7:9 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+7:9&sr=1&t=nkj)After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+7:10&sr=1&t=nkj)and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb! "Note - after he specifically gives 144,000 verse 9 then declares another group - 'a multitude that no one could number'.
Revelation 14 (Nun/kingdom reign) specifies that the 144,000 were 'redeemed from the earth,'but most importantly it calls them 'firstfruits':
These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb. 5 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+14:5&sr=1&t=nkj)And in their mouth was found no deceit, for they are without fault before the throne of God.
Romans 11:15 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ro+11:15&sr=1&t=nkj)For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ro+11:16&sr=1&t=nkj)For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy so are the branches.
1Corinthians 15: 23 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:23&sr=1&t=nkj)But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:24&sr=1&t=nkj)Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:25&sr=1&t=nkj)For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:26&sr=1&t=nkj)The last enemy that will be destroyed is deathNotice in Revelation 14 that 'they are without fault before the throne of God'. 14 in Rabbinic thought tells us 14/Nun relates to 'Messiah, heir to the throne'. Revelation 14 relates 'for the hour of His judgment has come'.

Back in Exodus God could have destroyed the tribes and established his promise through Moses and his generations - but Moses interceded with God not to do such a thing. If we consider Jesus Christ analogous with Moses - God could simply establish his promise with Christ and His Church -but then what of the 'whole of the congregation'?

joel

09-16-2007, 02:23 PM

Note - after he specifically gives 144,000 verse 9 then declares another group - 'a multitude that no one could number'.
Revelation 14 (Nun/kingdom reign) specifies that the 144,000 were 'redeemed from the earth,'but most importantly it calls them 'firstfruits':

and you also said;

Quote:
Romans 11:15For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy so are the branches.
Quote:
1Corinthians 15: 23But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death

Shalag,

Do you see a connection between these verses in that the 144,000 may be the firstfruit company of "...those who are Christ's at His coming"?

And, the group which is ".....a multitude which no one could number..." being the "third group" which is implied in I Corinthians 15......"then comes the end..", do you see the connection there?

Joel

shalag

09-16-2007, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Joel

Shalag,
Do you see a connection between these verses in that the 144,000 may be the firstfruit company of "...those who are Christ's at His coming"?

And, the group which is ".....a multitude which no one could number..." being the "third group" which is implied in I Corinthians 15......"then comes the end..", do you see the connection there? JoelFirst, since there has been a lot of discussion on these numbers, and what they represent or mean - this is simply my thought.

I find it hard to believe a specific number can be construed to a broad application - such as 1000 being a 'great number' meaning many or 144,000 being multitudes of multitudes. I don't see a consistency with that thought from the reading of the OT. God seems very specific in his record keeping - so many from this tribe, so many from that tribe, etc. Offerings were a specific animal, in specific number, to be offered at specific times for specific reasons.

Other than reading through Revelation I have never 'studied' it in depth because there were not teachers for it, and the teachers we hear today are not truly in agreement - especially with pre-trib, mid-trib and post trib 'theories'. I am not interested in theories - I seek truth.

As far as typologies - I tend to see in this way. I see the brothers Cain and Abel as a typology of the Jewish brethren and Christ. They pierced Christ side with a spear. Cain's name lends itself to the meaning of 'lance or spear'. Cain was destined to be a 'wanderer' on the earth:
Genesis 4:10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ge+4:10&sr=1&t=nkj)And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ge+4:11&sr=1&t=nkj)So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
Hebrews 12:24 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=heb+12:24&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ge+4:12&sr=1&t=nkj)When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth."
13 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ge+4:13&sr=1&t=nkj)And Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is greater than I can bear!
14 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ge+4:14&sr=1&t=nkj)Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me."

15 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=ge+4:15&sr=1&t=nkj)And the LORD said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.
After the crucifixion, and especially after the desolation of 70AD (and I am not convinced that that is THE abomination of desolation) the Jews have been as vagabonds and wanderers on the earth, with those 'finding them' seeking to kill them. But just as God put a mark on Cain, I see him putting a mark on 144,000:
Revelation 7:3 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+7:3&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - saying, "Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads."

Revelation 7:4 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+7:4&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en)And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed: In deference to Romans 2 and 9, 10 and 11 - yes - God does make a distinction on 'who is a Jew' - that it is not according to the circumcision of the flesh, but those from the 'seed'. Although we know that there is only 'one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all and that Christ is the promised seed - - there still remains the fact of 'Jew and Gentile'. Even though they comprise 'one new man' in Christ - there still remains the distinction.
Romans 11:13 or I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
16 and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partakerThe 12 tribes were 'separate' from the Gentiles. The 12 apostles were also 'separate' from the Gentiles and I believe the 144,000 are also going to be 'separate' from the Gentiles - as a matter of flesh - - of the seed of Isaac - also of the flesh but necessarily through Christ.

It is true that as a believer in Christ we are 'firstfruits' to him - as far as 'one faith, one baptism'. But Romans 11 speaks clearly making a distinction between the 'natural branches' and the 'wild branches' with a warning to the wild branches (Gentiles) not to boast against the 'natural branches' (12 tribes). (Normally I would have said 'Jews', but Stephen has emphasized a distinction so I am still considering that in thought). I see the 144,000 as natural branches with right as firstborn. Others have expressed it in 'earthly' and 'heavenly' terms making the distinction. I don't know that I see that yet - but I believe they fulfill a specific purpose in the orchestration of Christ's kingdom rule - whether on earth or in heaven.

In keeping with his promise to Cain, that he would place of mark on him that noone should kill him - and keeping promise with Abraham - that even for 'ten' [ten prodigal tribes?} he would not destroy them - and keeping promise with Moses that he would not destroy the recalcitrant Israelites, I see God as longsuffering, not willing that any (tribesman of his Seed) should perish, but come to repentance.

I see the 144,000 as the last of the tribesman of His Seed grafted back in after the time of the Gentiles has closed.
Romans 11:25 that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.Because there is 'one faith, one baptism' I see the 'bride' as corporate because both Jew and Gentile have been brought to faith in Christ. And also because the church has been used Scripturally analogous in 'bridal' terminology as 'betrothed' to Christ. My gut tells me there is probably a further distinction which qualifies 'bride' and that the 'whole body' of Christ is not necessarily the 'bride of Christ'. The bride will be known for her passion, and undying love for Christ, totally dependent on Him for her very life. We know the martyrs for this, but can we say this of the 'entire body'.

As regards the three groups - I had not given that much thought so I went to 1Corinthians 15 to consider it again:
1Corinthians 15:20 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:20&sr=1&t=nkj)But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. …
23 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:23&sr=1&t=nkj)But each one in his own order: [1] Christ the firstfruits,
[2] afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.
24 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:24&sr=1&t=nkj) [3] Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. Now that you said that it gives pause to thought that even though it is revealed that 'absent from the body, present with the Lord', that does not imply that a 'resurrection' has taken place. Resurrection would denote the 'new body'. Lazarus was called out of the grave (raised from the dead), but was not given an 'indestructible' body at that time. It is denoted that the 144,000 firstfruit have part in the 'first resurrection' - the first to receive their immortal bodies - 'over them the second death has no power.
Revelation 20:6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the seconddeath has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.And then after the 1000 years -the 'end comes' at the last trump - the remainder are raised incorruptible, and we ALL shall be changed - at that point.
1Corinthians 15:51 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:51&sr=1&t=nkj)Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed
52 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:52&sr=1&t=nkj)in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. I'm still thinking. As I said - I have not done a thorough study - and now my brain (and spirit from which to receive revelation) are reeling!

joel

09-17-2007, 04:26 AM

Shalag,

I thank you for your last post. It clearly, at least to me, pointed out some distinctions that are worthy of note.

In I Corinthians 15: 22-24, Paul is identifying the order of resurrection as pertains to humanity;

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This statement shows that all of humanity died, in Adam. There are no exceptions. This lines up with Romans 5 where Paul is comparing the two; Adam and Christ.

The universality of the death of all in Adam is contrasted with the life that will applicable to all in Christ.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

There are groups, or companies associated with the "life" giving process. Each company is beyond the power of death.

Christ represents the 1st company. He is the Firstborn from the dead.

Those who are Christ's at His coming are the 2nd company.

In order to receive the life, the dead must be raised. With the exception of those who are alive at His coming who will be given the life and who have not passed into the death. This is one of the "mysteries" given to Paul that had not been previously disclosed. Up until that moment of the revelation, the resurrection of the dead was the focus of the event of His coming. Now, Paul clearly teaches that those who are His, and are alive at His coming, will join the company of the raised dead to be joined unto Him.

As you pointed out, this corresponds to the former resurrection spoken of in Revelation. There remains, however, a clarification as to whether this former resurrection spans a period of time with both a beginning and a finality.

What I mean by this is that there exists a confusion concerning the resurrection of the dead that refers specifically to the body of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead that refers specifically to the company of saints that will undergo the trials of the events described in Revelation.

You alluded to this when you began to distinguish between the Body and the Bride. This is also a very important differentiation that we need to have further light from Him so that we can come in to the unity of the faith. We need not to be saying different things concerning these matters. He, according to Paul in Ephesians, will give those gifted ones to the body to bring forth a clarity on unclear issues.

The 3rd company are those in the latter resurrection. These are the vast multitude of humanity that were not the "elect" who will be raised at the time of the consummation ("the end"). It is the completion of the events that preclude the statement....."when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.(vs.24b). 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Joel

shalag

09-17-2007, 11:05 AM

Shalag, You alluded to this when you began to distinguish between the Body and the Bride. This is also a very important differentiation that we need to have further light from Him so that we can come in to the unity of the faith. We need not to be saying different things concerning these matters. He, according to Paul in Ephesians, will give those gifted ones to the body to bring forth a clarity on unclear issues.

The 3rd company are those in the latter resurrection. These are the vast multitude of humanity that were not the "elect" who will be raised at the time of the consummation ("the end"). It is the completion of the events that preclude the statement....."when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.(vs.24b). 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Joel I grapple with 'who is the bride'. Revelation clearly shows the bride as the 'holy Jerusalem'.
Revelation 21:2 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+21:2&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+21:10&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) … the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+21:11&sr=1&t=nkj)having the glory of God.
12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+21:12&sr=1&t=nkj)… with twelve gates, … on them, …the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
14 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+21:14&sr=1&t=nkj)… twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. This clearly defines a people created from the beginning of creation - from Genesis 1:1. Notice 'the bride' is seen 'descending out of heaven'. If 'descending' - then (?) coming down from heaven to earth?:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the 'heavens' and the 'earth'.

In the beginning = B'RAShYT - B (In) RAShYT (firstfruit)
1Corinthians 15:23 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=1co+15:23&sr=1&t=nkj)But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, Romans 9 then reveals Genesis 1 establishing 'who comprises the sons of the kingdom'. As to the 144,000 - again which I believe to be a specific number - as another verse says, "Many are called, few are chosen" - these clearly belong to the 'first resurrection':
Revelation 14:1 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+14:1&sr=1&t=nkj)Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.
3 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+14:3&sr=1&t=nkj)… the hundred and forty-four thousand who were redeemed from the earth.
4 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+14:4&sr=1&t=nkj)… they are virgins. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These were redeemed from among men, being firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.

Consider Matthew 25 and the parable of the virgins - there were 10 - five were ready, five were not.

Matthew 25:6 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+25:6&sr=1&t=nkj)"And at midnight a cry was heard: "Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him! '
7 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+25:7&sr=1&t=nkj)Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.
8 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+25:8&sr=1&t=nkj) …the foolish … the wise,
10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+25:10&sr=1&t=nkj)… the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding; and the door was shut.
11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+25:11&sr=1&t=nkj)"Afterward the other [foolish] virgins came also, saying, "Lord, Lord, open to us! '
12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+25:12&sr=1&t=nkj)But he answered and said, "Assuredly, I say to you, I do not know you.'
Now consider these verses. The bride is a 'mirror image' of her husband Christ. She is known for the same witness and testimony, not loving her life to the death. Only those who think like Christ, act like Christ, who hear the Word of God, walk by faith, are known by their fragrance, discerning the wisdom of Christ, and walk in demonstration of the power of the gospel (not loving their lives to the death), are 'noted' as the bride. These are they who (Matthew 7) entered by the narrow gate. Notice those on the broad road - they prophesied, cast out demons, saw miracles, etc - but they did not give up 'lawlessness'. Are we ruled by bitterness, anger, envy, covetness, judgments on others, etc. Then we are still on the broad road which leads to destruction. We need to behead ourselves of the world's wisdom and its ways and walk as the tribes were taught and the apostles demonstrated
Matthew 7:14 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+7:14&sr=1&t=nkj)Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Revelation 20:5 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+20:5&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. …This is the first resurrection.
6 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+20:6&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. … but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.Now I need to put this back into 'resurrection' thought. Christ has been resurrected from the dead. We need to consider those who came out their graves and appeared to many - in the holy city - after Christ's death. The first resurrection is noted as those who were 'beheaded' for Christ'. The second resurrection is after the 1000 years and the great white throne judgment.
Revelation 20: (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+20:12&sr=1&t=nkj)11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+20:12&sr=1&t=nkj)Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+20:12&sr=1&t=nkj)And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
13 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+20:13&sr=1&t=nkj)The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
14 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+20:14&sr=1&t=nkj)Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
15 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+20:15&sr=1&t=nkj)And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
This last Scripture tells me that you can have your name written in the book of Life - but that does not automatically make you of the 144,000 who rule and reign for 1000 years with Christ. The 144,00 did not love their lives unto the death - of all that was not Christ.

This would cause me to ponder that the 144,000 are not specifically 'Jews of the flesh' - as the tribes and apostles, but those who truly followed Jesus with every ounce of their being.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2007, 01:16 PM

The diversity of opinions regarding the future of Israel on this forum is quite amazing.
Yes it is, and even more amazing is the fact that there are many other views that are not even represented here!

So, I have concluded that I may as well add my view, as this has caused me to re-think my beliefs, over and over again. I find that, however, there has no concrete presentation that has caused to move away from that which I have held for some time.........and that is.....God is not finished with the nation of Israel.

Paul's teachings in Romans 9, 10 & 11 of Romans is the most definitve of presentations that you will find of all of scripture that lays out God's dealings with His covenant people.

Paul refers to them in Romans 9:3 as "my kinsmen according to the flesh;". When we read the 3 chapters, do we look at them as speaking to individuals, or to them as a "people"?

I would assert that his emphasis is national, and not individual.
It seems like it must be individual rather than national because Paul was talking about how some individual members of the nation of Israel believed, and how other individual members of the nation of Israel did not believe. This seems to cohere perfectly with the Olive Tree theology because the branches broken off were individual unbelievers, and any Israelite who did not persist in unbelief could be grafted back in immediately.

There is a secret that he reveals in chapter 11 that explains their current "unbelief"......it is that God has calloused them.....(vs.25).....they have been blinded so that they cannot belief.

This condition will be persistent (and has continued up unitil the present) until another significant event occurs........."the fullness of the Gentiles be come in."
That is a deep mystery. Why would Paul being willing to be "accursed from Christ" for his brethren's sake if he knew that God had made it impossible for them to believe?

God's covenant with them has not been terminated......"For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (vs. 27).
Actually, I think the "termination of the old covenant" is what the "new covenant" is all about. How do you understand Hebrews 8:13?

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Here's how one commentator explained that verse:

The argument that by designating the covenant 'new' God declared the covenant concluded at Sinai to be unserviceable and outmoded (πεπαλαίωκεν, 'obsolete, antiquated') carries the corollary that God himself has canceled its validity. He intends to make no further use of the old covenant and the forms through which it operated to achieve his redemptive purpose for his people (cf. de Vuyst, 'Oud en nieuw Verbond,' 254–55; Seesemann, TDNT 5:720). Consequently, the old arrangement is on the point of disappearing. The principle that a new act of God makes the old obsolete (cf. 7:11–12) reflects an eschatological outlook that perceives the Mosaic and Levitical institutions as fulfilled and superseded by Christ.

Lane, W. L. 2002. Word Biblical Commentary
It seems to me that Paul taught the abolition of the Old Covenant in 2 Corinthians too:

2 Corinthians 3:1-16 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? 2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: 3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; 6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: 8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? 9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. 12 ¶ Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: 13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. 15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
The word "done away" is katargeo, which is translated as destroyed in Romans 6:6 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." What's more, the word translated as "old" in "old man" is palaios which is the exact same word used in the phrase old testament quoted above.

The taking away of sins will be the same for them, as it is for the Gentiles who believe....it establishes a standing before God. But, a standing is not an end in itself. It is but a beginning of a life of serviced unto God.

To the Jews it will be a re-establishment. It will be a reconciliation that is reflective of the reconciliation that God is working with all of humanity.

During the next era, they (the Jews) will function on the earth consistent with their calling. They were chosen, they will be called.
You have mentioned this idea a number of times. But I don't know where the idea comes from. The Bible teaches that Christ is the all in all, and that the unbelieving Jews can be grafted into the Olive Tree if they believe in Christ. Where do you get this teaching about some future dispensation that is for the Jews and that will be different than the Gospel as we know it?

The body of Christ consists of those who were chosen (the election) to believe in Christ during this era. There is a calling and an inheritance that is applicable to the members of His body. This is not the calling and inheritance that the Jewish nation, having the callousness removed, and having the fulfillment of the promises of the New Covenant fulfilled within them, will enjoy.
Where does the Bible teach two different callings and two different inheritances? Why do you divide between Paul the Christian and Paul the Jew?

Besides what appears to be a lack of biblical support, the biggest challenge I have with your idea is that it seems to diminish the real meaning of Christ and the Gospel. I mean, who would want a chunk of dirt in the middle east over the inheritance of Christ, who is the all in all? Paul counted all things as dung compared with Christ. Every saint from Abraham on were not looking for an earthly city, but rather a heavenly city "whose builder and maker is God." I simply can not find any meaning at all in the idea that Christians will be raptured so that the Jews can return to the dead works of the Old Testament law. Christ died once and for all, there is no going back to the Old Testament Law!

There is a difference. And there is a purpose for the difference between the called out assembly during this era, and the called out assembly during the next.
You have mentioned this idea many times, my friend. But where is the Scritpure to back it up? Why don't you cite chapter and verse that teaches your ideas?

There are differences in the preparatory change that will occur within members of the body, and the overcomers of the next era. The differences can be seen in the composition of bodies. We, the membes of HIs body, will receive new bodies. Those of Israel will not receive the same......they will receive a new heart....the law of God will be written within them.....they will receive the spirit in such a magnitude that they will be enabled to obey Christ and be His servants on this earth.
Where did you get this idea? The Bible plainly teaches that we Christians have received a new heart, and the Law of God was written on it. Are you saying the verses from 2 Corinthians I quoted above don't apply to Chrisitans? Where do these ideas come from? If they come from the Bible, why don't you quote the passages that teach them?

The calling of the body of Christ is heavenly, not earthly.

If we differentiate those things which differ, and not mix them together, nor eliminate one because we have failed to see the difference, we influence the inheritance of those who are struggling to come to grips with these issues. Paul makes the distinctions, and we are to grasp them, and hold on to them.

Joel
I agree completely that we should "differentiate things that differ, and not mix them together" but to do that, we must properly interpret the Bible.

Here is why I find this challenging Joel. I don't understand why you teach these very unusual ideas without any attempt to establish them on the basis of the Bible. I mean, where does the Bible teach anything about the Jews going back to the Old Testament Law in the future, or having a separate inheritance from Christians? Since all the first Christians were Jews, it seems to me that you are "differentiating things" that most definitely do not differ! The Bible teaches there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ, and that Christ broke down the dividing wall and made one new man. How can you say there is still a distinction between them?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2007, 02:00 PM

First, since there has been a lot of discussion on these numbers, and what they represent or mean - this is simply my thought.

I find it hard to believe a specific number can be construed to a broad application - such as 1000 being a 'great number' meaning many or 144,000 being multitudes of multitudes. I don't see a consistency with that thought from the reading of the OT. God seems very specific in his record keeping - so many from this tribe, so many from that tribe, etc. Offerings were a specific animal, in specific number, to be offered at specific times for specific reasons.
Hi shalag,

I agree that God was "very specific in his record keeping" but I also know that God is "very" intelligent, so He knows how to write His Book in a way that we could understand. And since He filled Revelation with symbolic seals, symbolic trumpets, symbolic creatures, and symbolic numbers, and since He knows that we know that it would be extremely unlikely for large groups of thousands of people to come out repeatedly to an exact product of two symbolic numbers that He used symbolically elsewhere within the same book (1000 years, 12 foundations, etc), I conclude rather confidently that the numbers 12,000 and 144,000 are symbolic. But that's not too important if the 144,000 represent the literal Jews filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and soon thereafter (recall that "about 3000" were saved later that same day). If that's the case, folks who feel a need for a "literal" interpretation get a double portion! Both the Jews were literal, and so were their numbers.

Other than reading through Revelation I have never 'studied' it in depth because there were not teachers for it, and the teachers we hear today are not truly in agreement - especially with pre-trib, mid-trib and post trib 'theories'. I am not interested in theories - I seek truth.
Amen! :thumb:

And the first "truth" to be established is found by a literal interpretation of the time markers that Christ used in the first three verses:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Note also that Revelation follows the pattern of the Feasts of the Lord which were fulfilled when He came to earth. In Chapter 5 we see the Slain Lamb of Passover who then rose Victorious, and in Chapter 7 we see the 144,000 literal Jews who were sealed with the Holy Spirit, the true "seal" of the "living God" Himself!

As far as typologies - I tend to see in this way. I see the brothers Cain and Abel as a typology of the Jewish brethren and Christ. They pierced Christ side with a spear. Cain's name lends itself to the meaning of 'lance or spear'. Cain was destined to be a 'wanderer' on the earth:
After the crucifixion, and especially after the desolation of 70AD (and I am not convinced that that is THE abomination of desolation) the Jews have been as vagabonds and wanderers on the earth, with those 'finding them' seeking to kill them. But just as God put a mark on Cain, I see him putting a mark on 144,000:In deference to Romans 2 and 9, 10 and 11 - yes - God does make a distinction on 'who is a Jew' - that it is not according to the circumcision of the flesh, but those from the 'seed'. Although we know that there is only 'one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all and that Christ is the promised seed - - there still remains the fact of 'Jew and Gentile'. Even though they comprise 'one new man' in Christ - there still remains the distinction.The 12 tribes were 'separate' from the Gentiles. The 12 apostles were also 'separate' from the Gentiles and I believe the 144,000 are also going to be 'separate' from the Gentiles - as a matter of flesh - - of the seed of Isaac - also of the flesh but necessarily through Christ.
I don't understand why you say there still remains a distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ, when the Bible says there is no distinction. If you mean that we can still identify physical descent, then yes, there is a distinction, just as there is a distinction between the Chinese and the Europeans. But there is no biblical distinction between any races at all in Christ. That is a fundamental teaching of the New Testament.

It is true that as a believer in Christ we are 'firstfruits' to him - as far as 'one faith, one baptism'. But Romans 11 speaks clearly making a distinction between the 'natural branches' and the 'wild branches' with a warning to the wild branches (Gentiles) not to boast against the 'natural branches' (12 tribes). (Normally I would have said 'Jews', but Stephen has emphasized a distinction so I am still considering that in thought). I see the 144,000 as natural branches with right as firstborn. Others have expressed it in 'earthly' and 'heavenly' terms making the distinction. I don't know that I see that yet - but I believe they fulfill a specific purpose in the orchestration of Christ's kingdom rule - whether on earth or in heaven.
The right of the firstborn is a fascinating study. Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, but Isaac received the blessing and inheritance. Likewise, Esau was Isaac's firstborn, but Jacob received the blessing and inheritance. The pattern was repeated a third time with Ephraim and Manasseh.

Now as for Stephen's emphasis on the distinction between "Jews" and "the ten tribes" - that appears to be a false distinction in the New Testament. It seems that all the natural born seed of Abraham were calling themselves "Jews" in the first century regardless of their tribal affiliations. For example, Nave's Topical Bible dictionary states that "After the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel the name was applied to all Israelites [any member of the 12 tribes], as well as to those of the two tribes."

Richard

shalag

09-17-2007, 04:17 PM

Hi shalag,

I agree that God was "very specific in his record keeping" but I also know that God is "very" intelligent, so He knows how to write His Book in a way that we could understand. :lol::lol::D:lol::lol: Just who is 'we' !!! I can't say I understand it at this point of time. And of all the prophecy teachers out there I'm not really sure they understand it either!
And the first "truth" to be established is found by a literal interpretation of the time markers that Christ used in the first three verses: In reference to things that must shortly take place - the time is near - how short is short and how near is near? And how quick is quick? As far as a literal 'time marker' Jesus promised to return 'quickly'. It's been 2000 years + and I don't think we missed his coming. Yet He says He comes 'quickly':
Revelation 3:11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+3:11&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.

Revelationa 22:7 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+22:7&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) "Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book."

Revelation 22:12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+22:12&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) "And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work.

Revelation 22:20 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=re+22:20&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!
I don't understand why you say there still remains a distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ, when the Bible says there is no distinction. If you mean that we can still identify physical descent, then yes, there is a distinction, just as there is a distinction between the Chinese and the Europeans. But there is no biblical distinction between any races at all in Christ. That is a fundamental teaching of the New Testament. It is not so much a distinction between the 'races' as far as being one in Christ, but there is a distinction made as to the 'right of the firstborn'. And I don't know if you would call it a distinction or a (concession / not the right word) - but for example Acts 15 and 21 made specific delineation as to what the Gentiles were to observe.
The right of the firstborn is a fascinating study. Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, but Isaac received the blessing and inheritance. Likewise, Esau was Isaac's firstborn, but Jacob received the blessing and inheritance. The pattern was repeated a third time with Ephraim and Manasseh. And there in lies the crux - the inheritance. In particular the blessing and authority that was given with the inheritance. But as you have pointed out - even with Cain and Abel - the distinction is not made by the 'flesh' but by the firstborn of the 'second Adam' - the life-giving spirit.

Now as for Stephen's emphasis on the distinction between "Jews" and "the ten tribes" - that appears to be a false distinction in the New Testament. It seems that all the natural born seed of Abraham were calling themselves "Jews" in the first century regardless of their tribal affiliations. For example, Nave's Topical Bible dictionary states that "After the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel the name was applied to all Israelites [any member of the 12 tribes], as well as to those of the two tribes." I hear what you are saying, but on the other hand the Bible definitely writes the distinction between Judah and Israel, both choosing representative kings who dictated the worship. And sometimes it makes you stop and think of those differences in order to assess our own personal failings and make corrections.

joel

09-17-2007, 04:44 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2007, 05:57 PM

:lol::lol::D:lol::lol: Just who is 'we' !!! I can't say I understand it at this point of time. And of all the prophecy teachers out there I'm not really sure they understand it either!
Ha! I'm gonna have to get a bigger laughing smilie! That is hilarious!

But I do really believe that the lion's share of confusion is caused by the really really really bad pop prophecy teachers that made up the whole displensational fantasy thing starting back with Darby and the Scofield Bible and culminating in Hal Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" and the "Left Behind" series. I mean, the teachings are just so very very very out of touch with the actual text of Scripture that it is ludicrous beyond all description. Or so it seems to me, in my humble opinion.

In reference to things that must shortly take place - the time is near - how short is short and how near is near? And how quick is quick? As far as a literal 'time marker' Jesus promised to return 'quickly'. It's been 2000 years + and I don't think we missed his coming.
That's the point exactly. What did Jesus mean when He said He was coming soon? Did He mean His Second Coming? I don't think so, and there's plenty of evidence that the word "coming" did not always mean "Second Coming" (which I believe is still future, by the way). For example, Jesus warned the first century church of Ephesus: "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." (Revelation 2:5) Another example is found in Matthew 16:28: "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Now this means either that you believe there are "some" (= more than one) of those persons standing there in the first century that are currently walking around the planet, or that Jesus meant some else than the "Second Coming" when He spoke of the "Son of Man coming in his Kingdom." Of course, we know that He didn't mean that some of the folks in the first century crowd were going to live 2000+ years, since the obvious meaning of "some standing here shall not tasted death till" is as a time marker meaning "this generation" just like when He said "Verily I say unto you, This [first century] generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

All the time markers point directly to the first century. This is common knowledge amongst those who study the Bible. The issue then is this: either Jesus was wrong or we have misunderstood His Word. The only two possible misunderstandings seem ot be 1) what Christ meant when He spoke of His "coming," or 2) the meaning of the time markers. I think Number 2 is much less likely as the point of error because the literal meaning of the time markers seems impossible to miss, whereas folks ignorant of the Bible frequently misunderstand the apocalyptic language that Christ used. E.g. they think literal stars will be falling from the literal heavens (one of which would obliterate the whole earth, etc.)

It is not so much a distinction between the 'races' as far as being one in Christ, but there is a distinction made as to the 'right of the firstborn'.
Where does the Bible teach that Jews have the "right of the firstnborn over other Christians? The only thing that comes close is the phrase "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile" but I don't think that implies anything about any priviledges.

And I don't know if you would call it a distinction or a (concession / not the right word) - but for example Acts 15 and 21 made specific delineation as to what the Gentiles were to observe.
Yes, but the Book of Acts is an historical narrative about what the early church was doing as it struggled to understand the relation between Jews and Gentiles. It would be entirely wrong to interpret the historical narrative as a prescriptive theological discourse like Romans. There is nothing in Acts that says every action of every Apostle was to be emulated. For example, in the historical narrative of the Gospels, we are told that tha Apostle Peter denied Christ three times. Should we emulate him? Of course not.

And there in lies the crux - the inheritance. In particular the blessing and authority that was given with the inheritance. But as you have pointed out - even with Cain and Abel - the distinction is not made by the 'flesh' but by the firstborn of the 'second Adam' - the life-giving spirit.
Yes, that is a very good point - the pattern seems to be first the natural, "afterward that which is spiritual." (1 Cor 15:48).

But as for the inheritance - where do you get the idea that the Jews had an inheritance that differed in any way at all from the inheritance common to all the seed of Abraham? This is a perfect example of why there is such a great confusion about these issues. There are teachers who are contradicting the plain teaching of the Holy Bible. Consider these words:

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

The Bible could be no clearer. There is absolutely no distinction between Jew and Gentile in Christ. There is one and only one inheritance "according to promise." That's it.

I hear what you are saying, but on the other hand the Bible definitely writes the distinction between Judah and Israel, both choosing representative kings who dictated the worship. And sometimes it makes you stop and think of those differences in order to assess our own personal failings and make corrections.
Yes indeed, all things in the Old Testament were written for our edification. But the distinction between the house of Judah and the House of Israel no longer exists.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2007, 06:18 PM

Richard, I will give specific scriptures as they are appropriate to the discussion.

First, the thread title is the "Callousness of Israel".

Let's begin there, if you allow, and see what is says;

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part has happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

The "blindness" is a callus that has been administered to them, as a people, so that they cannot see the truth.

Some individuals, during this era, do see. So, the blindness is not to all of them.

The Gentiles represent all people who are not Jews.

Joel
Hi Joel,

First, I agree that the Gentiles represent all people that are not Jews. But in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile, and I do not see anything in the Bible that suggests God is going to reintroduce that distinction into His plan for furture history.

Now as for Romans 11:25 - I think that is the wrong place to start the discussion of the relation between Jews and Gentiles because it comes at the conclusion of a long three chapter argument that occupies Romans 9-11.

To understand Romans 11, we MUST understand the Olive Tree Theology that it teaches. I've brought this up many times but for some strange reason it feels like no one has noticed it yet. I believe that it is essential to have a biblical understanding of the relation between the believing and unbelieving members of the "seed of Abrahah."

There are two Olive Trees. One represents the remnant of Believing Israel that has always existed since Abraham. God has been cultivating this Olive Tree, cutting off branches according as the Husbandman saw fit (John 15:1).

Then when Christ came, the unbelieving branches were revealed and cut off, and the believing branches of the wild Olive Tree (Gentiles) were grafted into the CHURCH that began with the Jews sealed at Pentecost.

The unbelieving branches can be grafted back into the cultivated Olive Tree if they no longer abide in unbelief, that is, if they become Christians.
Do you agree with this presentation of the Olive Tree theology? If not, please specify precisely where you disagree, so we can find a way beyond this impass of talking past each other. We need to GROUND this conversation on what the BIBLE really says. I am TOTALLY willing to change at any point of error you can prove to me. I really am Joel! Only a fool would desire to persist in known error.

Richard

shalag

09-17-2007, 07:39 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2007, 08:12 PM

There's a couple of things there I want to reply to but I'm short on time at present. But all I have to say is you keep saying,

The Bible could be no clearer … … this is common knowledge for those that study the bible … … why, it's clear … it's clear … it's clear!!!Richard, I've been studying the bible intensely, amongst great tribulation for that past 20 years. It has been my PRIMARY focus. And even though Scripture makes a 'clear' statement - keeping that 'clear statement' in context with all the other 'clear statements' that are often seemingly opposite - it has not yet been that clear or evident to me that 'that's the way it is'. I believe the Pharisee's thought that the Scriptures were 'clear' - so clear in fact that they crucified Christ because He didn't fit into their clarity. Even with all the Hebrew roots - its still not that clear to me.
Hi there shalag,

I'm not sure to which statements you refer. Sure, I think some things are "clear" - but I also have a profound understanding of the many areas opinions differ, and the fact that there are valid biblical reasons for the differences. And I don't know what you are talking about when you say I think "everything" is so clear. Why not just discuss the actual questions I ask and the points I make, instead of characterizing "everything" I wrote by the rather empty assertion that all I do is claim "clarity"? It seems you are dodging the "tough questions." The fact is, I have repeated the Olive Tree theology many times on this forum, and I am not aware of any attempt to refute me on my interpretation. Why is that?

I am particularly dissappointed that you liken my supposed "clarity" to that of the Pharisees. That adds a little unnecessary offense. But don't worry about that - I'm not complaining. I just thought maybe you'd like to know how your comment strikes me.

If you think a statement of mine is false, why not address the exact statemment I made and explain why you think it wrong? That would be much preferable to likening me to a Pharissee.

Let me ask you this - so that I'm not misunderstanding - and I'm sure you have said it somewhere else on this forum - but am I understanding that you think the Book of Revelation is a 'done deal'. That all that remains is the Second Coming? I have NEVER heard that taught - so I don't think I'm the only one in the dark - if that is the case. :confused2:

I think the Book of Revelation is primarily a "done deal" in that it recapitulates the history from the First to the Second Coming of Christ. Though there may be correlations with the specific sequence of historical events through the centuries (such as the Papacy in Rev 13 which is the historicist position), I think most of it is a symbolic representation of the Great Tribulation of AD 66-70, with symbolic prophecies of the Second Coming and eternal state. But I'm still working all that out. It is certainly not clear to me as yet! :lol:

The preterist and amillennial ideas are very old and have been the traditional Protestant eschatological view. The pre-mill rapture stuff was just made up a couple centuries ago. I don't know how you have diligently studied for twenty years and have not encountered these ideas, except to say that the pop press has poured out a flood of dispensational stuff, and most Christian book sellers have ignored the legitimate biblical studies because they can't make much money that way. Remember, the false "Left Behind" theology is one of the largest sellers of all time.

Richard

shalag

09-17-2007, 09:26 PM

Hi there shalag,

I'm not sure to which statements you refer. Sure, I think some things are "clear" - but I also have a profound understanding of the many areas opinions differ, and the fact that there are valid biblical reasons for the differences. And I don't know what you are talking about when you say I think "everything" is so clear. Why not just discuss the actual questions I ask and the points I make, instead of characterizing "everything" I wrote by the rather empty assertion that all I do is claim "clarity"? It seems you are dodging the "tough questions." The fact is, I have repeated the Olive Tree theology many times on this forum, and I am not aware of any attempt to refute me on my interpretation. Why is that? It may appear to you that I am dodging the 'tough questions.' The fact is - if I have no revelation on them - I can not answer them. It is not a dodge - it is that I can not see it/understand it. Even though the statement may be plain in itself it belongs to a complex issue that can not be given a quick answer.

Now, please do not take offense to this, but you now mention the Olive Tree theology. This may be native to you - because of your intensive study - but to me I sitting here scratching my head saying "Olive Tree theology":confused2: - and I'm drawing a total blank". There is much on the forum - and in your book -and with the many opinions back and forth I can't remember who thinks what - for sure. I am under major stress this weekend just returning from Fairbanks with what was supposed to be a few hours blood transfusion which lasted two days. So my mind has not totally gone into rest for me to think about the Olive Tree theology.

I am particularly dissappointed that you liken my supposed "clarity" to that of the Pharisees. That adds a little unnecessary offense. But don't worry about that - I'm not complaining. I just thought maybe you'd like to know how your comment strikes me.I'm sorry you took offense at that Richard, because NO offense was intended. NONE, NONE, NONE, NONE. I was addressing clarity itself - not you. I was simply saying what was clarity to one was not necessarily clarity to another.
If you think a statement of mine is false, why not address the exact statemment I made and explain why you think it wrong? That would be much preferable to likening me to a Pharissee. It's not that I think a statement is false. If I don't see it, don't understand it, I'm not calling it false - it simply means I can not understand it in how you see it. And again - I was not likening YOU to a Pharisee - I was addressing the issue of 'clarity'.
I think the Book of Revelation is primarily a "done deal" in that it recapitulates the history from the First to the Second Coming of Christ. Though there may be correlations with the specific sequence of historical events through the centuries (such as the Papacy in Rev 13 which is the historicist position), I think most of it is a symbolic representation of the Great Tribulation of AD 66-70, with symbolic prophecies of the Second Coming and eternal state. But I'm still working all that out. It is certainly not clear to me as yet! :lol:You and Stephen are blest with a great deal of historical background. I am not. Therefore you may be seeing things that I am totally unaware of or unable to understand in that context. And maybe that is why you see it as a done deal. I have not been able to understand it that way - -yet.
The preterist and amillennial ideas are very old and have been the traditional Protestant eschatological view. The pre-mill rapture stuff was just made up a couple centuries ago. I don't know how you have diligently studied for twenty years and have not encountered these ideas, except to say that the pop press has poured out a flood of dispensational stuff, and most Christian book sellers have ignored the legitimate biblical studies because they can't make much money that way. Remember, the false "Left Behind" theology is one of the largest sellers of all time. RichardI think I mentioned to you once, that other than the Bible, the only other sources - which are recent - are Ginsburgh and the Biblewheel. I spent two years in a Messianic congregation learning basics, a year or two with a Pentecostal deliverance ministry and the rest of the time simply studying on my own (due to my location) with the concordance and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, in order to make it day by day in an intense marital situation. I was fortunate at that time when my husband was working that I could spend literally 8 - 10 hours a day with my Bible and concordance. I soaked it in like a sponge. I couldn't put it down. My literal life depended on it. I wasn't studying to enhance my intellectual capacity. I was studying to survive alive. I have never read 'left behind'. I have not read the pop prophecies. I am aware they exist - but I was never led to anything other than the Word of God. I take that back. I have spent considerable time in my early years with Oswald Chambers. I know 'terminology', but that does not mean I am familiar with the various ideas they present. My memory just stores the 'words'.

So that is it Richard - - no offense was intended. But it's a little disconcerting when things are 'supposed to be clear' and I can not understand it.

PS I was just out moving straw bales and I thought 'Oh my gosh! I hope he doesn't think I meant that HE studies to enhance his intellectual capacity. Richard!!!!! I am simply trying to express a thought - not trying to make inferences on anyone.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2007, 10:08 PM

It may appear to you that I am dodging the 'tough questions.' The fact is - if I have no revelation on them - I can not answer them. It is not a dodge - it is that I can not see it/understand it. Even though the statement may be plain in itself it belongs to a complex issue that can not be given a quick answer.
Hey there my friend!

I just noticed your "PS" and I think you are like me ... you think about what you wrote and worry that the other person will be offended if you didn't say something "just right." So don't worry ... it will "all come out in the wash." :D When no offence is intended, its usually pretty easy to keep the boat of conversation afloat.

Now, please do not take offense to this, but you now mention the Olive Tree theology. This may be native to you - because of your intensive study - but to me I sitting here scratching my head saying "Olive Tree theology":confused2: - and I'm drawing a total blank". There is much on the forum - and in your book -and with the many opinions back and forth I can't remember who thinks what - for sure. I am under major stress this weekend just returning from Fairbanks with what was supposed to be a few hours blood transfusion which lasted two days. So my mind has not totally gone into rest for me to think about the Olive Tree theology.
Oh ... I'm sorry to hear about the challenges. I know how hard it is when caring for a family member in poor health. I certainly don't want to add to your stress! That's not what this conversation is supposed to be about. But we all have our own styles and personalities and its hard to express how we really feel in little black characters on a computer screen. So breath deep, and don't worry about anything here on this forum. It is supposed to be a place of learning for all of us. I certainly don't have anything like "all the answers."

Now as for the "Olive Tree theology" I was just talking about the picture of the Church we get from Romans 11, where the Church (aka Israel) is likened to an Olive Tree, and believing Gentiles are grafted in and unbelieving natural branches were broken off. I have emphasised this picture because it is presented in the Bible, and it seems super clear to me, and so I thought it would help us all understand the relation between Jews, Gentiles, and the Church.

I'm sorry you took offense at that Richard, because NO offense was intended. NONE, NONE, NONE, NONE. I was addressing clarity itself - not you. I was simply saying what was clarity to one was not necessarily clarity to another.
No worries my friend! When I said I wasn't concerned about it, I meant it. But I am glad your clarified what you meant.

It's not that I think a statement is false. If I don't see it, don't understand it, I'm not calling it false - it simply means I can not understand it in how you see it.
Actually, I have absolutely NO problem whatsoever if you think something I say is wrong. I'm just interested in the reason why, so I can learn more and refine my understanding to conform more to God's Word.

And again - I was not likening YOU to a Pharisee - I was addressing the issue of 'clarity'. You and Stephen are blest with a great deal of historical background. I am not. Therefore you may be seeing things that I am totally unaware of or unable to understand in that context. And maybe that is why you see it as a done deal. I have not been able to understand it that way - -yet.I think I mentioned to you once, that other than the Bible, the only other sources - which are recent - are Ginsburgh and the Biblewheel. I spent two years in a Messianic congregation learning basics, a year or two with a Pentecostal deliverance ministry and the rest of the time simply studying on my own (due to my location) with the concordance and the revelation of the Holy Spirit, in order to make it day by day in an intense marital situation.
I am honored to be a resource of your studies ... but I think it might be a good time to expand your knowledge base since we are dealing with topics neither Ginsburgh nor the Bible Wheel book address much. There is a vast body of knowledge relating to eschatology ... you don't need to learn it all by any means, but it is pretty important to be familiar with the basic views that Christians have developed over the centuries so we don't just go "reinventing the wheel" (if you know what I mean. :lol:)

I was fortunate at that time when my husband was working that I could spend literally 8 - 10 hours a day with my Bible and concordance. I soaked it in like a sponge. I couldn't put it down. My literal life depended on it. I wasn't studying to enhance my intellectual capacity. I was studying to survive alive. I have never read 'left behind'. I have not read the pop prophecies. I am aware they exist - but I was never led to anything other than the Word of God. I take that back. I have spent considerable time in my early years with Oswald Chambers. I know 'terminology', but that does not mean I am familiar with the various ideas they present. My memory just stores the 'words'.
Oswald was great - I don't recall much emphasis on eschatology.He was devotional, and very good.

I can tell by the things you write that you have taken in the Bible as a "source of life" and thats the best that any could do. The discussion of eschatology is important, but it doesn't compare to devotional reading in any way at all.

So that is it Richard - - no offense was intended. But it's a little disconcerting when things are 'supposed to be clear' and I can not understand it.
Absolutely NO offence taken, my friend. Just trying to get the conversation to a point where we can do the good work of really understanding a little more of what the Bible is saying.

PS I was just out moving straw bales and I thought 'Oh my gosh! I hope he doesn't think I meant that HE studies to enhance his intellectual capacity. Richard!!!!! I am simply trying to express a thought - not trying to make inferences on anyone.
Yeah, that's the thing I was talking about at the top of this post. You are like me .... you relfect on what you wrote and then worry like ... Uh oh! What if he thinks I meant that! :eek: -- well, don't worry Shalag, all is good.

You and your husband are in my prayers. Stay strong in the Lord sister!

Richard

joel

09-19-2007, 03:08 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-19-2007, 09:49 AM

Richard, please again explain your understanding of "spiritual Israel". And, provide scriptural references.

I believe that this will help clarify our respective positions as to the fate of Israel. I have heard you use the expression "ethnic Israel", which I assume would mean as well "Israel after the flesh".

Thanks, Joel
Hi Joel!

Thanks for the questions. :thumb: I find that a very helpful way to proceed. But I don't understand why you asked about "spiritual Israel." I don't generally use that term in my explanation of the Olive Tree Theology, and as far as I can see, it is not needed for this discussion. So let's use the Biblical terms as best we can and see where we agree or disagree in our beliefs.

It seems to me that the Olive Tree theology makes the relation between Jews, Gentiles, and the Church very clear. In Romans 11 God represents His Old Testament people as branches of a cultivated Olive Tree and the Gentiles as branches of a "wild" Olive Tree. Three things happened when Christ came and confirmed the New Covenant with many. 1) The believers amongst ethnic Israel such as Peter, Paul, James and John, remained as branches in the cultivated Olive Tree and were given the gift of the Holy Spirit. 2) The unbeliving members of ethnic Israel were broken off the cultivated Olive Tree, and 3) Gentiles who believed were grafted in. Thus we see that the cultivated Olive Tree is composed of all believers in Jesus Christ, and this is the definition of the Christian Church. The Bible confirms this by declaring that "we [Christians] are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus." (Phil 3:3). And again in Galatians where we Christians are declared to be "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, the Bible declares the unbelievers amongst the natural seed of Abraham are NOT the children of God:

Romans 9:6-8 ... For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

A very similar passage saying much the same thing about the Jews is found earlier in Romans:

Romans 2:28-29 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

The New Testament uses these terms pretty much interchangeably - Jew, Circumcision, Seed of Abraham, Commonwealth of Israel, Israel - and it explicitly states that Christians are the Circumcision (which is the definition of Jews and Israel) and that Christians are the seed of Abraham and heirs according to the promise (which is another definition of Jews and Israel).

Note also that the Olive Tree theology taught in Romans 11 perfectly coheres with Christ's own teaching in John 15:

John 15:1-6 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. 3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. 5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

So the Church is the cultivated Olive Tree, and if anything were to be called "spiritual Israel" this would be it. But it is important to avoid getting too hung up on words. If you have trouble with "spiritual Israel" you could just as well use "True Israel" or "Believing Remnant of Israel" or perhaps "The Israel of God" might be best. But a Rose is a Rose, and would smell as sweet no matter what name we call it, and this Rose is the Gospel Rose of all who trust in the Rose of Sharon that rose from the grave!

I hope that cleared things up. I am very interested to know where you agree or disagree with what I wrote.

Richard

joel

09-19-2007, 12:01 PM

Rose

09-19-2007, 02:05 PM

Hi Joel :yo:

I'm going to jump in with something that came to mind as I was reading your last post.

From what I am understanding you to say........individual Jews, who are branches of the cultivated olive tree, were cut out of the tree because of unbelief. The wild olive branches, representing a wild tree, are those who believe God and are grafted in place of the natural branches.

I would say that the believing gentiles are grafted in to the natural Olive tree...but not in place of the unbelieving branches who were cast away.

Similar wording is used in John 15:6 ....
If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

as in Romans 11:15....
For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?

that is speaking of the branches being cast away because of unbelief, and the wild branches that are grafted in are not replacing the broken off branches, for the broken off branches can still be grafted back in again, and if they are it will be life from the dead! So their place on the Olive tree where they were broken off still remains open for them to be grafted back in!

The ultimate plan of God is to unite all in Christ. Christ is the root and we all partake of the eternal life that comes from Him....thus being one Olive tree. And we are to always keep in mind, that because of their unbelief, salvation was made available to the Gentiles. Praise God!

Rose

ccc

09-19-2007, 03:00 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-19-2007, 03:10 PM

Thanks, Richard, for your clearly expressed post.

After reading your response, and trying to call from memory that which you have previously stated in this post, and in other posts, (as I find it to be difficult in actually going back and reading posts).......and, please, do not think that I am trying to put words in your mouth.....but, I cannot help but conclude that you see the nation of Israel as being set aside, and, the church as coming forth in such a way that Israel, as a people, will no longer be used of God to fulfill His purposes.

I do recall that in another post you rejected the characterization of your beliefs along this line as "replacement theology". I assume that phrase means that the "church" has replaced "Israel".

Hello my friend!

Don't worry about "putting words in my mouth." Since we are just chatting and are friends, I am quite sure that things will get more and more clear as the conversation progresses. You will correct my misunderstandings, and I will do my best to correct yours, until we come to the Unity of the Faith.

Now as for your question that I underlined above ... As far as I know from reading the Bible, the only plans God has for the broken branches (aka national Israel) is to graft them back into the cultivated Olive Tree if they don't remain in unbelief. I also suspect He will use those who are grafted back in as planetary witnesses to help cover the earth with "the knowledge of the glory of the Lord." But I don't believe He will be setting up a "millennial kingom" in Jerusalem because the Bible doesn't teach anything about Jesus ruling on earth for a thousand years, and God doesn't seem interested in earthly ethnic kingdoms. His purpose is centered on the Kingdom of God and the salvation of all men in Christ, aka the Gospel.

I agree with you when you say that we should refrain from using terms that are not scriptural. I would suggest that "replacement theology" is that type of unscriptural term that we should avoid, just as is "Olive Tree theology".
Actually, I don't have any problem at all using words that aren't found in the Bible. My problem with "Replacement Theology" is that it is a pejorative term that doesn't accurately represent the position opposed by those who use it. How many times have I had to repeat that the Church hasn't "replaced" Israel? The term "Replacement Theology" does not accurately reflect the doctrine that God has One Covenant People who are called the "Seed of Abraham" (aka the Church, Galatians 3:28-29).

On the other hand, the term "Olive Tree" is used in the Bible, and so the phrase "Olive Tree Theology" seems perfectly descriptive of theology based on the metaphor of the Olive Tree in Romans 11. Why wouldn't you want to use it?

From what I am understanding you to say........individual Jews, who are branches of the cultivated olive tree, were cut out of the tree because of unbelief. The wild olive branches, representing a wild tree, are those who believe God and are grafted in place of the natural branches.
That's close, but as Rose noted in her post, the Gentiles were not grafted in "in place" of the natural branches. There is no "replacement" involved in any of this.

Paul continues by warning that if the natural branches were cut out of their own tree, you and I may also be cut out of the same tree.

Does the olive tree theology say that such a treatment would constitute "losing your salvation"?
The phrase "Olive Tree theology" is not meant to be the title of a "system" of theology like "Calvinism" or some such. I coined the term just so we all would know that we are using the Biblical metaphor of the Olive Tree as taught in Romans 11 to understand the relation between the Church and Israel. I coined it because nobody seemed to be noticing that the Olive Tree metaphor really helps understand the relation.

Now was for "losing one's salvation" ... that's a tricky question, because the Bible never says we can be "unborn again" or that we enter in and out of eternal life. On the other hand, there are many conditional statements like Colossians 1:21,23 "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled ... If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled." So Paul's warning that we could be cut off from the Olive Tree seems to fall into the same category as one of those warnings that are in tension with the "once saved always saved" verses. So I think I would like to save that question for a thread that deals specifically with that issue.

In other words, God prunes branches as in John 15, cutting some out, and leaving some in. And, this is all based on their "faith". Is this a part of the olive tree theology?

Joel
Yes, I would say that is exactly what God is teaching with the Olive Tree metaphor in Romans 11 and the True Vine of John 15.

So what do you think Joel? Is this understanding of the Olive Tree true to what Paul is teaching in Romans 11?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-19-2007, 05:21 PM

Hi Richard,

I appreciated Shalag’s 'nutshell' question to you. Do you believe the Book of Revelation is a 'done deal'?

So as to understand your position, at this time or stage in your studies, do you consider yourself to be a 'full' or 'partial' preterist'?

Not that I am that conversant with either, but I understand there is a vast difference between them regarding the interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
Hi ccc!

I like the way you asked that - "at this time or stage" in my studies. I'm glad you understand that we are all still learning. These are not simple questions that we wrestle with, and we all will almost certainly change our ideas as time goes on.

So in answer to your question - I am NOT a "full preterist" because I beleive in the future bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ and the future universal physical resurrection. The best description of my position is as an "Orthodox Preterist" who believes in possible Historical applications. For example, the Seven Letters to the Seven Churches seem to match Church History pretty well, and the Papacy in Rev 13 is a possibility, and the French Revolution in Rev 11, etc. But strict Historicism seems kinda "hit and miss" and efforts to match every detail seem doomed to fail, so if its valid at all it seems to be a "secondary" interpretation. Finally, I really do see the whole book pretty much in the Hendriksen (More than Conquerors) style of repeated symbilic representations of the history from the First to the Second Advents of Christ, with most of the action focussed on the first century.

Speaking about 'The Israel Of God', the respected scholar O. Palmer Robertson has used a similar title for his book:

'THE ISRAEL OF GOD: Yesterday, Today, And Tomorrow'

I am only part way through, and much of it is beyond my intellectual capacity, but I think you, Shalag and Stephen would absorb it like a sponge.
ISBN O-87552-398-6 (paperback yr. 2000)

The back cover has the following comments:

'Is the modern state of Israel the fulfillment of ancient prophecy? Are Jewish people saved by virtue of being God’s chosen people? These important questions affect our theology, evangelism, missions – even our politics. Palmer Robertson carefully and clearly takes us to the Bible to answer these and other questions. His masterful exegesis of Hebrews 7 and Romans 11 alone are worth the price of this book.' Temper Longman III

'Palmer Robertson provides fresh and brilliant insight into the content of God’s promises of redemption to Old Testament Israel and their relevance to the Christian church. This is an exciting read.' R.C. Sproul

The introduction includes part of a speech by President Bill Clinton.

" ... 'If you abandon Israel, God will never forgive you' ... it is God's will that Israel, the biblical home of the people of Israel, continue for ever and ever." So spoke the President of the United States in a speech delivered before the Israeli Knesset assembled in Jerusalem ... Your journey is our journey, and America will stand with you now and always.

In this historic statement, the President made some striking assertions. First of all, he expressed the view that an abandonment of the people of Israel by the United States would be an unforgivable sin. Second, he asserted that the land of the Bible, according to the will of God, should continue as the possession of the nation of Israel forever. Third, he committed the United States to support the nation of Israel without qualification forever.
Palmer's book looks very interesting. Thanks for the tip. I'll definitely look into it more.

BTW - I'm glad you decided to jump into another thread. It's nice to get out once in a while, isn't it? :)

Richard

joel

09-20-2007, 05:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by joel
From what I am understanding you to say........individual Jews, who are branches of the cultivated olive tree, were cut out of the tree because of unbelief. The wild olive branches, representing a wild tree, are those who believe God and are grafted in place of the natural branches.

That's close, but as Rose noted in her post, the Gentiles were not grafted in "in place" of the natural branches. There is no "replacement" involved in any of this.

O.K. The Gentiles are individually grafted into the tree. You clarify it as to mean that they are not actually replacing the grafted out limbs, but are grafted into the tree.

The tree remains as the cultivated, natural tree. It just has some new branches.

Since nowhere in Romans 9, 10 & 11 does Paul speak of the "body", how can we refer to the tree as representing the church?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-20-2007, 07:52 AM

O.K. The Gentiles are individually grafted into the tree. You clarify it as to mean that they are not actually replacing the grafted out limbs, but are grafted into the tree.

The tree remains as the cultivated, natural tree. It just has some new branches.
Correct. It just has some new branches, and some of the old branches were broken off.

Since nowhere in Romans 9, 10 & 11 does Paul speak of the "body", how can we refer to the tree as representing the church?

Joel
Each branch of the Olive Tree represents a person who believes in Jesus Christ. Any branch that does not believe in Jesus Christ has been broken off. This is the definition of the Church which is the Body of all who believe in Christ.

Richard

joel

09-20-2007, 12:06 PM

But, I was asking a specific question; If the body, or the church is not specifically mentioned in this section of scripture, how do we have the liberty to say the olive tree represents the church?

What you are saying, if I may rephrase it, is that you believe the olive tree represents our standing in Christ. "This is the definition of the Church which is the Body of all who believe in Christ."....is how you put it.

If that is so, and the warning to us is that if we are not boastful towards the grafted out branches, and be in fear towards God because of the possible eventuality of that event, then we may also be grafted out.......isn't that inconsistent with Paul's previous revelation that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, and that there is no condemation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8....)?

Maybe, then, the olive tree does not represent our standing in Christ, but, something else.

Since olive oil could represent both the oil that lights the lamps, and, the oil that annoints, could the grafting out be representative of service to God, rather than standing?

Joel

Rose

09-20-2007, 01:46 PM

But, I was asking a specific question; If the body, or the church is not specifically mentioned in this section of scripture, how do we have the liberty to say the olive tree represents the church?

I think we can be certain that the "Olive tree" represents the church, because of the way Paul speaks of the unbelieving branches that are broken off, and believing wild branches that are grafted in. The term believer is always referred to as believers in Christ, whether they be called "christian" or "the church" or "the body of Christ" or "the olive tree", they are all interchangeable terms.

Maybe, then, the olive tree does not represent our standing in Christ, but, something else.

Since olive oil could represent both the oil that lights the lamps, and, the oil that annoints, could the grafting out be representative of service to God, rather than standing?

In the same way Jesus speaks of Himself being the Vine, and those that abide in the vine being part of His body. It seems equally clear that in Romans 11, Paul is talking about peoples standing in Christ, and how the Jews stumbling and failure to accept Messiah is riches for the Gentiles.

Salvation is the central issue here, the definition of "the Church" is "the body of Christ" it began with Jewish believers in Christ and grew to include Gentiles. The same with the Olive tree, it began with the natural branches "Jewish believers" and grew to include wild branches "Gentiles" who were believers. Whichever way its presented, those that abide in Christ are part of "the group" called believers!

Rom 11:16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.We who abide in Christ, are those branches!

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

09-20-2007, 03:59 PM

Since nowhere in Romans 9, 10 & 11 does Paul speak of the "body", how can we refer to the tree as representing the church?

Joel

Each branch of the Olive Tree represents a person who believes in Jesus Christ. Any branch that does not believe in Jesus Christ has been broken off. This is the definition of the Church which is the Body of all who believe in Christ.

Richard]

But, I was asking a specific question; If the body, or the church is not specifically mentioned in this section of scripture, how do we have the liberty to say the olive tree represents the church?
I thought I gave you a specific answer. There is a one-to-onw correspondence between the members of the Church and the branches on the Olive Tree. That means they represent the same group of people.

What you are saying, if I may rephrase it, is that you believe the olive tree represents our standing in Christ. "This is the definition of the Church which is the Body of all who believe in Christ."....is how you put it.
Yes, that's a good way to put it, since the text itself says "because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith." This seems to have pretty much the same meaning as what Paul said earlier:

Romans 5:1-2 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

The Faith of which Paul talks is the Christian Faith that defines the Church. If you have this faith, you are member in the Body of Christ and a "branch" of the Olive Tree. If you do not have this faith, then you are not a member of the Body of Christ and you are not a branch attached to the Olive Tree. Therefore, every member of the Church is attached to the Olive Tree, and any person not a memebr of the Church is also not attached as a branch of the Olive Tree. This proves that the Olive Tree represents the same group of people as the Church.

If that is so, and the warning to us is that if we are not boastful towards the grafted out branches, and be in fear towards God because of the possible eventuality of that event, then we may also be grafted out.......isn't that inconsistent with Paul's previous revelation that nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, and that there is no condemation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8....)?

Maybe, then, the olive tree does not represent our standing in Christ, but, something else.

Since olive oil could represent both the oil that lights the lamps, and, the oil that annoints, could the grafting out be representative of service to God, rather than standing?

Joel
As noted in my previous post, Paul's warning here is no different than any other Biblical warning against apostasy. The conditional is explicit - you will remain attached to the Olive Tree "if thou continue in his goodness." This conditional is just like the conditional in Colossians 1:21,23: "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled ... If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled." Therefore, the apparent contradiction with the doctrine of Once Saved Always Saved can not be taken to imply that the Olive Tree is not the Church.

Richard

joel

09-21-2007, 08:03 AM

Salvation is the central issue here, the definition of "the Church" is "the body of Christ" it began with Jewish believers in Christ and grew to include Gentiles. The same with the Olive tree, it began with the natural branches "Jewish believers" and grew to include wild branches "Gentiles" who were believers. Whichever way its presented, those that abide in Christ are part of "the group" called believers!

I understand what you are saying, and, it is apparent that the "church" began with only Jewish believers, and, was extended to the Gentiles. Who would deny that?

But, the question is; does this symbolism represent what you say it represents?

If we go back into the old testament, and study the references to the "olive", and the "olive tree", when taken in context it seems that those references generally apply to "service" unto God.

The oil of the olive was specifically used to keep the lamps in the holy places aflame.

Oil was also used in annointing for service.

The lamp is obviously the word of God as it sheds it light. The oil, I would say, would represent the spirit of God as it testifies to the word, and as it gives power for service.

The fruit of the spirit is like the olives that will grow on the branches.

To liken the olive tree to salvation is going back to an earlier portion of Paul's Romans letter where He covers in detail the beginning of salvation which is associated with the justification of each of us through the blood of Christ.

This justification cannot be reversed. We cannot become unjustified once we are justified.

However, there is a very distinct possibility that a saved person can be set aside for service. This is what I believe Paul is speaking about; the service of God rendered by the saints. Once, in times past, the service was exclusively the calling of Israel. To them, belonged all of the service roles and gifts.

Paul's anthema from Christ, if seen in this context, is not that he would hope himself "unsaved" for his brethren in order for them to be "saved" in the respect of their right standing before God. That is an impossibility to which Paul would not make reference.

It is their service to God which has been set aside. Granted, if they don't believe the gospel, they cannot be saved. But, additionally, if they don't believe the gospel, they cannot enter into the calling that once extended unto them.

Paul, throughout these chapters 9-11 is struggling with their status which once was exclusively granted by God. He concludes that they have been made "enemies" for the gospel's sake......this accruing to the benefit of the Gentiles.....but, the callousness, which is an insensitivity not a blindness, is temporary, not permanent.

They are beloved because of the fathers. If you limit the discussion to "salvation" which means in the context "being in right standing with God",
and say that is what the olive tree represents, then, you also must support that the grafting out is to lose your standing with God, which by Paul's previous account, is not possible.

Joel

shalag

09-21-2007, 10:12 AM

I understand what you are saying, and, it is apparent that the "church" began with only Jewish believers, and, was extended to the Gentiles. Who would deny that?

But, the question is; does this symbolism represent what you say it represents?

If we go back into the old testament, and study the references to the "olive", and the "olive tree", when taken in context it seems that those references generally apply to "service" unto God.

The oil of the olive was specifically used to keep the lamps in the holy places aflame.

Oil was also used in annointing for service.

The lamp is obviously the word of God as it sheds it light. The oil, I would say, would represent the spirit of God as it testifies to the word, and as it gives power for service.

The fruit of the spirit is like the olives that will grow on the branches.

To liken the olive tree to salvation is going back to an earlier portion of Paul's Romans letter where He covers in detail the beginning of salvation which is associated with the justification of each of us through the blood of Christ.

This justification cannot be reversed. We cannot become unjustified once we are justified.

However, there is a very distinct possibility that a saved person can be set aside for service. This is what I believe Paul is speaking about; the service of God rendered by the saints. Once, in times past, the service was exclusively the calling of Israel. To them, belonged all of the service roles and gifts.

Paul's anthema from Christ, if seen in this context, is not that he would hope himself "unsaved" for his brethren in order for them to be "saved" in the respect of their right standing before God. That is an impossibility to which Paul would not make reference.

It is their service to God which has been set aside. Granted, if they don't believe the gospel, they cannot be saved. But, additionally, if they don't believe the gospel, they cannot enter into the calling that once extended unto them.

Paul, throughout these chapters 9-11 is struggling with their status which once was exclusively granted by God. He concludes that they have been made "enemies" for the gospel's sake......this accruing to the benefit of the Gentiles.....but, the callousness, which is an insensitivity not a blindness, is temporary, not permanent.

They are beloved because of the fathers. If you limit the discussion to "salvation" which means in the context "being in right standing with God",
and say that is what the olive tree represents, then, you also must support that the grafting out is to lose your standing with God, which by Paul's previous account, is not possible.

JoelI will add my AMEN to this. Joel, it would be interesting to ponder the 10 virgins, Matthew 25 - the five who had oil to keep their lamps lit -and the five who did not. I have a long time friend who has been called to prayer. Even with her humble, true devotion, God just spoke to her this summer to 'pray for the anointing to serve'. There is something deeper in this. John 12 reveals Jesus's anointing at Bethany:
John 12:3 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:3&sr=1&t=nkj)Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
4 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:4&sr=1&t=nkj) But one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, who would betray Him, said,
5 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:5&sr=1&t=nkj)"Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii [Shin] and given to the poor?"
6 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:6&sr=1&t=nkj)This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it.
7 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:7&sr=1&t=nkj)But Jesus said, "Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial.
8 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:8&sr=1&t=nkj)For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always." John 12 continues with Jesus declaring the death He would die, and stating the ‘blinding’ to see it, with the quotation of Isaiah 53:
John 12:37 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:37&sr=1&t=nkj)But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him,
38 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:38&sr=1&t=nkj)that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: "Lord, who has believed our report?And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?"
39 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:39&sr=1&t=nkj) Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
40 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=joh+12:40&sr=1&t=nkj)" He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them."!John 13 then opens with Jesus washing the disciples feet, identifying his betrayer, giving the new commandment and predicting Peter's denial.

The olive tree produces the fruit of the olive. The olive is crushed for its oil. The oil is poured out for the 'anointing to serve'. Thus he spoke to Peter, "Do you love me - do you 'love' me, do you LOVE me.…. You feed lambs milk (do you love me, feed my lambs - - the milk - - of the Word). You feed sheep for two purposes - brood ewes (do you love me, tend my sheep) - and for slaughter (do you love me, feed my sheep - lay down your life as I have laid mine down). Notice this takes place in John 21 [Shin].

In Matthew 16 Peter receives the revelation of "You are the Christ'. In verse 21 [Shin/divine revelation of divine essence] Jesus reveals His death and in verse 22 [Tav / the cross] Peter rebukes Jesus for the way of the cross - you might say he was 'blinded in part' at this point of time. It is in John (spoke 21) verse 21 that Peter 'sees'. In Acts 21 Paul is arrested at Jerusalem and 'ready to be bound and die' and in Acts 22 (spoke 22, verse 22) Paul testifies to his encounter of 'blinding' by the light.

The ten virgins, five and five - Israel has been blinded in part - -??? Just passing on my thoughts.

Richard, you believe that the Biblewheel is a witness to Jews. Then as the blinding light was a witness to Paul, so ought the Biblewheel - at its appointed time - produce fruit of the 'ethnic Israel' to be as a 'nation of Pauls' .

Richard Amiel McGough

09-21-2007, 10:54 AM

They are beloved because of the fathers. If you limit the discussion to "salvation" which means in the context "being in right standing with God",
and say that is what the olive tree represents, then, you also must support that the grafting out is to lose your standing with God, which by Paul's previous account, is not possible.

Joel
Hey Joel,

That is a very ineresting view of Romans 11. I have never thought of it that way before, so I would like to reflect a little on it before answering. But in the mean while, it would help me if you could explain your understanding of Paul's conditional statement in Colossians 1:21-23:

Colossians 1:21-23 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Isn't this the same problem that you see with the threat of being cut off from the Olive Tree? Paul said that we are NOW reconciled if we continue in the faith. This seems to suggest that we would lose our "reconciliation" which is our justification if we fell away from the faith. Is this not directly parallel with his statement that we are NOW in the Olive Tree if we continue in God's goodness?

Richard

Rose

09-21-2007, 11:09 AM

If we go back into the old testament, and study the references to the "olive", and the "olive tree", when taken in context it seems that those references generally apply to "service" unto God.

The oil of the olive was specifically used to keep the lamps in the holy places aflame.

Oil was also used in annointing for service.

The lamp is obviously the word of God as it sheds it light. The oil, I would say, would represent the spirit of God as it testifies to the word, and as it gives power for service.

The fruit of the spirit is like the olives that will grow on the branches.

What we must remember, is that the branches which are sustained by the root (which is Christ), produces the olives which give the oil. We "Christians" (natural and wild branches) produce fruit,that gives the oil = our calling and service. So when we partake of the life from the Root of the Olive tree we produce fruit, that is our calling and service.

To liken the olive tree to salvation is going back to an earlier portion of Paul's Romans letter where He covers in detail the beginning of salvation which is associated with the justification of each of us through the blood of Christ.

Being grafted into the Olive tree is salvation, we become part of the body (tree), but then once we are saved and part of the body, we start producing fruit=oil, and then go forth in our calling and service. If we don't produce fruit (that is continue in Gods goodness) we are pruned off, though still able to be grafted in again, as with the natural branches that were broken off. At least thats my understanding :)

May God continue to give us all wisdom and understanding of His Word :pray:

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

09-21-2007, 10:17 PM

Hey Joel,

I searched the entire last 70 years of the journal of the dispenstationalist Dallas Theological Seminary "Bibliotheca Sacra" and found NO significant analysis of the theological meaning of the Olive Tree in Romans 11. All I found was a wearying repetition of what seemed to me to be an unfounded dispensational assertion that it represented "a place of blessing." Then after searching through decades of the Journal of the Evangelic Theological Society (JETS) I found this review of the multitude of intepretations offered over the years. It is from a footnote of another article in JETS that got its information from an article by C. B. Hoch, Jr. called “The Significance of the syn-Compounds for Jew-Gentile Relationships in the Body of Christ,” JETS 25/2 (1982) 175-183:

The following views regarding the identity of the olive tree in Romans 11 have been identified by Hoch: (1) Israel (Nygren, 1949); (2) true Israel (Allis, 1964); (3) the Israel of God (Johnston, 1943); (4) the true people of God (Flew, 1943); (5) God’s chosen people (Kugelman, 1955); (6) the continuing permanent covenant community (Pieters, 1950); (7) the body of those in whom the grace of Christ has been truly operative (Ellison, 1966); (8) the Church in history (Packer, 1962); (9) the mystical body of Christ (Bourke, 1947); (10) the place of privilege (Ryrie, 1959); (11) the Abrahamic covenant (Younce, 1963).

Most of those interpretations seem to identify the Olive Tree with the Church. It seems that your view that "the olive tree represents our standing in Christ" is most consistent with Point 10 "the place of privilege (Ryrie, 1959)." I find that interesting because Ryrie is one of the most famous dispensationalists, and his view seems to be pretty close to the standard view held by all the dispensationalist that I read in the Bibliotheca Sacra (i.e. the "place of blessing").

Richard

PS: To see just how bad dispensational "theology" can get, consider this quote from the famed Walvoord:

In the New Testament, the use of the olive tree as a figure in Romans 11 involves the three stages: (1) Israel in the place of blessing; (2) Israel cut off and the Gentiles in the place of blessing; (3) the Gentiles cut off and Israel grafted in again.

Dallas Theological Seminary. 1953; 2002. Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 110 (110:297). Dallas Theological Seminary

Exactly WHERE does the New Testament teache that "the Gentiles will be cut off" from the Olive Tree? That is one very strange assertion. I have no idea where he could have gotten such an idea. Do you think he's talking about the pre-mill rapture?

joel

09-22-2007, 04:07 AM

Richard, I realize that my views concerning Romans 11 are not consistent with the common view(s). So I think it would be helpful to attempt to clarify what I think Paul is saying in this section of scripture.

He has taken considerable care in building to this point by what was said in the previous 8 chapters, and his proclamation of the gospel has focused on what has occurred in regards to "us"...the body of Christ which has been called out of the vast company of humanity.

Our position in Christ is safe beyond question. We cannot be charged with an accusation that would cause us to be legally cut out of the body. Nor can any thing whatsoever cause us to be separated from God's love, that love which is evident by being "in Christ".

So, with that preparation, the olive tree cannot refer to our standing with God. It cannot represent being "in Christ" as far as our belonging to him, and being related to him. That is why I do not support the notion that the olive tree is referring the "church" as far as being "in" the "church". I believe that the theology of God cutting individual members out, and then, placing them back in the body does not align with Paul's teachings in Romans 1 -8.

As he enters into Romans 9, he is concerned with the fate of the people known as Israel, his kinsmen according to flesh. If it is inconsistent to believe that God will cut you out of your relationship with Him, then, the anathema that he spoke of must refer to something other than "standing".

As I mentioned previously, the olive oil is connected with service, not with standing.

We can have standing, and be an "enemy" as far as "service" is concerned. You can become "an enemy of the cross of Christ". In that capacity, your service is contrary to the pathway of grace. You have fallen out of grace in respect to your uselfullness to God.

In respect to Israel, Paul makes it clear that Israel's grafting out was God's doing......and......it accrued to our benefit in that we have received the blessings of God consistent with right standing with God as Rose has pointed out. It is upon our shoulders to be a blessing, as well as being blessed, or we can also find that we are "cut out"..........not out of the family of God, but out of useful service that glorifies God.

We have seen this happen to many people who were once used mightily by God, and who have fallen into various trials that have rendered them useless as to His glory. They have become vessels of dishonor.

This is due, so I believe, to the failure to distinguish between the two major victories of Christ's sacrifice;
1.) His shed blood is for our sins....what we have done to call forth the wrath of a perfectly holy and just God.
2.) His body that became sin , went into death, and was "deposited", being cut off from the land of the living. In that died, He died unto sin. And, in that He died once for all, death has no more claim to HIm. In that He was resurrected, He is the head of a new race wherein there are no physical, earthly distinctions between us, as members of His body.

However, the truth of the new creation is not immediately apparent. It is a secret to be revealed to those who are a part of it. In the fullness of time, it is my belief that Paul teaches that all, without exception, will be a part of the new, just as surely as all were a part of the old. This is the purpose of the eons which He created in Christ.

As long as the "old" continues to exist, God will use things of the "old" to cause a change. That is what the reconciliation is about. He is reconciling all in that He caused it to occur in Christ, Who is the first, as well as the last.

There are two distinct victories;
1.) His blood is linked with justification. This is the victory over "sins".
2.) His body is linked with reconciliation. This is the victory over "sin", and "death".
The faithful gospel proclamation includes both facets. Otherwise, the flesh is allowed to continue to live separate from the cross, rather than crucified as where it should be reckoned.

Joel
Joel

Rose

09-22-2007, 08:13 AM

the olive tree cannot refer to our standing with God. It cannot represent being "in Christ" as far as our belonging to him, and being related to him. That is why I do not support the notion that the olive tree is referring the "church" as far as being "in" the "church". I believe that the theology of God cutting individual members out, and then, placing them back in the body does not align with Paul's teachings in Romans 1 -8.

As he enters into Romans 9, he is concerned with the fate of the people known as Israel, his kinsmen according to flesh. If it is inconsistent to believe that God will cut you out of your relationship with Him, then, the anathema that he spoke of must refer to something other than "standing".

As I mentioned previously, the olive oil is connected with service, not with standing.

If the Olive tree does not refer to our standing in Christ why were the unbelieving Jews cut out?

And why does Paul end the Olive tree discourse by saying all Israel shall be saved?

In my view he is clearly talking about salvation being the reason people are either part of the tree or not. I don't see how it could be any other way, since the natural tree started out as natural Israel according to the flesh, and they were cut out because of unbelief; that is who Paul was trying to provoke to jealousy so he might save some of them.

Rom 11:14
If by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

09-22-2007, 08:17 AM

Richard, I realize that my views concerning Romans 11 are not consistent with the common view(s). So I think it would be helpful to attempt to clarify what I think Paul is saying in this section of scripture.
Sounds like a pretty good idea to me!

He has taken considerable care in building to this point by what was said in the previous 8 chapters, and his proclamation of the gospel has focused on what has occurred in regards to "us"...the body of Christ which has been called out of the vast company of humanity.

Our position in Christ is safe beyond question. We cannot be charged with an accusation that would cause us to be legally cut out of the body. Nor can any thing whatsoever cause us to be separated from God's love, that love which is evident by being "in Christ".
I agree that "our position in Christ is safe beyond question." But Paul didn't write a word about any "accusation that would cause us to be legally cut out of the body." He warned that we would remain "reconciled (Col 1:21) or "in the Olive Tree" (Rom 11:22) only "if we continue" in the faith (Col 1:23) or in God's "goodness" (Rom 11:22). Do you see what I am getting at? If that warning means that the "Olive Tree" can not be the Church, then the same logic demands that the group of people who have been "reconciled" by Christ can not be the Church either.

So how do you understand Colossians 1:21-23? Can a person become "unreconciled" if they fail to "continue in the faith grounded and settled"?

So, with that preparation, the olive tree cannot refer to our standing with God. It cannot represent being "in Christ" as far as our belonging to him, and being related to him. That is why I do not support the notion that the olive tree is referring the "church" as far as being "in" the "church". I believe that the theology of God cutting individual members out, and then, placing them back in the body does not align with Paul's teachings in Romans 1 -8.
If the Olive Tree can not refer to our "standing in Christ" why then does the text say "thou standest by faith" in the Olive Tree? Furthermore, John 15 teaches a very similar metaphor for our "standing in Christ" in John 15, where also He warns that we will be "cast forth as a branch, and withered" if we abide not in Him, the Vine. Is not John 15 teaching the same truths as Roman 11? They have many parallels and there does not seem to be any tension between them.

As he enters into Romans 9, he is concerned with the fate of the people known as Israel, his kinsmen according to flesh. If it is inconsistent to believe that God will cut you out of your relationship with Him, then, the anathema that he spoke of must refer to something other than "standing".
John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

As I mentioned previously, the olive oil is connected with service, not with standing.

We can have standing, and be an "enemy" as far as "service" is concerned. You can become "an enemy of the cross of Christ". In that capacity, your service is contrary to the pathway of grace. You have fallen out of grace in respect to your uselfullness to God.
The problem with this idea is that is that Paul specifically speaks of their salvation "If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. (Romans 11:14) and again in the climax of his whole argument: "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:" (Romans 11:26) Does this not prove that the subject is salvation rather than service?

In respect to Israel, Paul makes it clear that Israel's grafting out was God's doing......and......it accrued to our benefit in that we have received the blessings of God consistent with right standing with God as Rose has pointed out. It is upon our shoulders to be a blessing, as well as being blessed, or we can also find that we are "cut out"..........not out of the family of God, but out of useful service that glorifies God.
And what did the Gentiles gain by being grafted into the Olive Tree if not salvation? As it is written: "through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles" (Rom 11:11).

We have seen this happen to many people who were once used mightily by God, and who have fallen into various trials that have rendered them useless as to His glory. They have become vessels of dishonor.
But we can not judge whether or not they remained "saved" or even if they were "saved" in the first place. God uses the unsaved for his purposes too.

Great chatting Joel! :yo:

Richard

joel

09-22-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:
Colossians 1:21-23 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Isn't this the same problem that you see with the threat of being cut off from the Olive Tree? Paul said that we are NOW reconciled if we continue in the faith. This seems to suggest that we would lose our "reconciliation" which is our justification if we fell away from the faith. Is this not directly parallel with his statement that we are NOW in the Olive Tree if we continue in God's goodness?

Richard
__________________

Richard, I suggest that we differentiate between "justification", and "reconciliation".

Justification, which is a "legal" term, the word having Latin roots, describes the process of taking a sinner, under the penalty of God's wrath, subject to the indignation of God and, causing him to be "just". This is directly related to the blood of Christ. God graces the believer with a new standing. Whereas, before, he was "unjust" and subject to God's judgment against his "sins".

Reconciliation, which is also a "legal" term, having also its roots in the Latin words, describes the change in relationship that has occurred between God and man. Whereas, before the change has occurred the man was considered to be estranged, and an enemy of God. Because of the death of God's Son, God is said to be "conciliated" to man. This change results in a new peace between God and man.

When carried to its ultimate conclusion, man becomes reconciled to God, no longer an enemy, but now a fellow worker with God realizes His purposes.

Justification is something that has occurred, and cannot be reversed. By faith in the shed blood of Christ, a believer is said to be "just".

Conciliation is something that also occurred, but our acknowledgement of it and the resultant change that is to occur in our lives, being at peace and being a peace maker, is contingent upon our realization of it.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-22-2007, 01:46 PM

Richard, I suggest that we differentiate between "justification", and "reconciliation".

Justification, which is a "legal" term, the word having Latin roots, describes the process of taking a sinner, under the penalty of God's wrath, subject to the indignation of God and, causing him to be "just". This is directly related to the blood of Christ. God graces the believer with a new standing. Whereas, before, he was "unjust" and subject to God's judgment against his "sins".

Reconciliation, which is also a "legal" term, having also its roots in the Latin words, describes the change in relationship that has occurred between God and man. Whereas, before the change has occurred the man was considered to be estranged, and an enemy of God. Because of the death of God's Son, God is said to be "conciliated" to man. This change results in a new peace between God and man.

When carried to its ultimate conclusion, man becomes reconciled to God, no longer an enemy, but now a fellow worker with God realizes His purposes.

Justification is something that has occurred, and cannot be reversed. By faith in the shed blood of Christ, a believer is said to be "just".

Conciliation is something that also occurred, but our acknowledgement of it and the resultant change that is to occur in our lives, being at peace and being a peace maker, is contingent upon our realization of it.

Joel

Are you suggesting that there are members of the body of Christ who are justified, but not reconciled? Or reconciled but not justified? If not, why do we need to make this distinction?

Richard

joel

09-23-2007, 06:51 AM

Are you suggesting that there are members of the body of Christ who are justified, but not reconciled? Or reconciled but not justified? If not, why do we need to make this distinction?

Richard

I am saying that the scriptures teach that;
1.) We are justified; rendered righteous by faith in Christ's blood. We stand before Him as "saints", and not as "sinners" because of His blood shed for us, and not because of works of the flesh.
All believers have been justified. This is the act of God of placing us. We are in Him.
Many don't know this. Knowledge is not faith. We are granted faith as to His work on our behalf even if we don't understand it. Understanding comes later, and is helpful to our giving back praise. Faith is not an act of the intellect.

2.) We were conciliated to God through the death of His Son. This word, conciliated, is "katalasso". This is the establishment of a new relationship.
Romans 5:10 is where we first find this word, as part of the gospel spoken by Paul, and proclaimed along with justification.
Very few believers can speak of this.
Notice that it is first, conciliation, and not reconciliation. They are two different words. Close examination will reveal that the first use of reconciliation, "apokatalasso" occurs in Ephesians 2:16.

Justification and conciliation are two different things that God has accomplished in Christ. They have both been accomplised in behalf of us, and will eventually be recognized and believed by all.

They apply to us as believers, and it is our duty to struggle to gain an understanding so that we can serve Him and glorify Him.

Joel

Rose

09-23-2007, 09:10 AM

Hey Joel.....I'm confused :confused2:

Even if as you say; Justification and conciliation are two different things.

Justification and conciliation are two different things that God has accomplished in Christ. They have both been accomplised in behalf of us, and will eventually be recognized and believed by all.

How can we be justified without being reconciled?

When we come to Christ and accept salvation, we have to simultaneously be reconciled and justified. So at that moment in time we are both justified and reconciled.

All Christians start out at that point!

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

09-23-2007, 09:25 AM

I am saying that the scriptures teach that;
1.) We are justified; rendered righteous by faith in Christ's blood. We stand before Him as "saints", and not as "sinners" because of His blood shed for us, and not because of works of the flesh.
All believers have been justified. This is the act of God of placing us. We are in Him.
Many don't know this. Knowledge is not faith. We are granted faith as to His work on our behalf even if we don't understand it. Understanding comes later, and is helpful to our giving back praise. Faith is not an act of the intellect.

2.) We were conciliated to God through the death of His Son. This word, conciliated, is "katalasso". This is the establishment of a new relationship.
Romans 5:10 is where we first find this word, as part of the gospel spoken by Paul, and proclaimed along with justification.
Very few believers can speak of this.
Notice that it is first, conciliation, and not reconciliation. They are two different words. Close examination will reveal that the first use of reconciliation, "apokatalasso" occurs in Ephesians 2:16.

Justification and conciliation are two different things that God has accomplished in Christ. They have both been accomplised in behalf of us, and will eventually be recognized and believed by all.

They apply to us as believers, and it is our duty to struggle to gain an understanding so that we can serve Him and glorify Him.

Joel

Hi Joel,

I agree that justification and reconciliation are two different things, but I disagree that any person can have one without the other. Let us begin with the seminal passage:

Romans 5:8-11 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Who are the "we" that were "sinners" for whom Christ died?
Who are the "we" that were "justified"?
Who are the "we" that were "reconciled"
Who are the "we" that have "received the atonement"?

There is only one group of people refered to as "we" in that passage. It is speaking of we Christians - every individual who has ever been justified by the death of Christ.

How then can a Christian be justified but not reconciled? The Bible declares that "we were reconciled by the death of his son" - that's past tense, which means it is a done deal for all believers. Justification and reconciliation come together as a "package deal" when we are saved by Christ. This is confirmed by the declaration that "we have now received" (past tense) "the atonement" (=katalagge = reconciliation).

Now as for your distinction between the "function" or "effect caused by" the blood versus the body. I think that is an invalid distinction. Both the body and blood are used in parallel as different but related metaphors for the saving death of Christ. The terms are used in parallel, so I don't see any justification for asserting a fundamental distinction between them. Consider this passage from Colossians:

Colossians 1:20-23 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. 21 ¶ And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

Do you see that? This verse first declares that we have been reconciled by his blood, and then it declares that we have been reconciled by his body. And ealier we saw that the Bible declares that we were reconciled simply by the "death of his son."

And again, the passage in Colossians declares the reconciliation a done deal using the past tense. "And you ... now he hath reconciled."

Richard

joel

09-23-2007, 10:06 AM

Hi Joel,

I agree that justification and reconciliation are two different things, but I disagree that any person can have one without the other. Let us begin with the seminal passage:

Richard, I did not say that you can have one without the other. You read that into what I was saying.

Christ accomplished both our justification, and our conciliation. The world does not know either of these truths.
Most believers know very little of the former, and even less of the latter.
This is what I have experienced in my dealings with many who are believers.

Let me rephrase it; we are justified, and we are conciliated.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-23-2007, 10:44 AM

Richard, I did not say that you can have one without the other. You read that into what I was saying.
Great! That's all I wanted to know. Every believer is both justified and reconciled. So now we can move back to the topic at hand, correct?

I assert that the Olive Tree represents the Church. My proof is that every branch of the Olive Tree "standeth by faith" in Christ which is the definition of the Church. This is confirmed first by the fact that the topic of Romans 11 is salvation of the Jews and Gentiles, and again by the nearly identical teaching of the True Vine and its branches that Christ gave in John 15.

You denied this conclusion by asserting that Olive Tree could not be the church because our inclusion in it was conditional. I showed that the same conditional inclusion applied to the church by quoting Colossians:

Colossians 1:21-23 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled 22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight: 23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

So now - after quite an interesting digression - we have come back to the essential question. Do you now agree that the conditional "if ye continue" in Colossians 1:23 applies to the Church, that is, to all members of the Body of Christ who have been reconciled (past tense)?

If so, then do you agree that your argument that the Olive Tree could not represent the Church because of the conditional "if you continue" in Romans 11:22 fails?

Richard

joel

09-23-2007, 04:51 PM

So now - after quite an interesting digression - we have come back to the essential question. Do you now agree that the conditional "if ye continue" in Colossians 1:23 applies to the Church, that is, to all members of the Body of Christ who have been reconciled (past tense)?

If so, then do you agree that your argument that the Olive Tree could not represent the Church because of the conditional "if you continue" in Romans 11:22 fails?

Richard

"If ye continue"........
Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shall be cut off.
This is the section of scripture that we have been discussing. In no way do I see that this applies to our standing in God, which is our position in Him corresponding to justification by faith.
This section of scripture is pertaining to the reconciliation aspect of God's work in Christ, not on the justifying process.
Again, the "grafting in" pertains to service to God, not to our standing.

Their fall has resulted in salvation to the nations, so as to provoke them to jealousy. (Romans 11:11).
Their casting away has resulted in "reconciling of the world."

You contend that their restoration is only representative of being in the church. But, again, I contend that this is not the focus of the discussion.
You have stated in many other posts that they will not be brought back into the service of God but only in the church.
You, in persisting in this position, insist that they (Israel) can no longer be used by God but only under "a new convenant" that has been promulgated by God pertaining to the body of Christ.

I have stated that I agree with you that "in Christ" there is no Jew nor Greek, nor any other distinction of the flesh that would cause division.
But, Paul is not talking about the body of Christ, the church, in these chapters.
He is talking about Israel.
God is going to reconcile them back unto Himself, and not by just assimilating them into the body of Christ, but, by restoring them to their original calling and bringing them into their inheritance.
I see this as a magnificent act of restoration on the earth as a vital part in His program of subjecting all things unto Himself.

It is that phase of God's restoration, those things in the heavens and those things on the earth, that is being discussed in the section of Colossians to which you make reference.

The high calling of God for the body is discussed in Ephesians, it is is the celestial realms.

As Colossians falls after Ephesians, Paul's teaching is sequential. The discussion concerning "conciliation" began in Romans 5. It is expanded in II Corinthians.

The reconciliation "apokatallasso" is explained in Ephesians and Colossians. The body of Christ is actively involved in the "conciliation" as well as the "reconciliation". The nation of Israel does not have the same purpose.
The conciliation and the resultant reconciliation were not revealed to them in their scripture.

Colossians 1:5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel;
6 Which is come unto you as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:
7 As ye also learned of Ephras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ:
8 Who also declared unto us your love in the Spirit.
9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard of it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10 That ye might walk worthily of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11 Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness;
12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by Him were all things created, that in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:
17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.
18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullness dwell;
20 And, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.
21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.
22 In the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight.
23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof, I Paul am made a minister;

Where is the confusion?
We have been justified in HIs blood,
We have conciliated by death to His body......
and, we have been "reconciled" which is the result of the former......so that we also may be presented holy, and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight........if ye continue.........
the continuing does not jeopardize our standing with God,
but, our being presented in a completed state.

That was the basis of my objection to presenting the truths of Romans 11 as pertaining to the "justification" that places you in right standing....which when we understand that it pertains to our "service", we may be completed, just as Israel will ultimately be brought into their completion.

Joel
And, in conjunction with this, the body of Christ will enter into its service

Richard Amiel McGough

09-23-2007, 08:34 PM

"If ye continue"........
Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shall be cut off.
This is the section of scripture that we have been discussing. In no way do I see that this applies to our standing in God, which is our position in Him corresponding to justification by faith.
Hi Joel,

I don't understand how Romans 11 could not "apply to our standing in God" because Paul said that we "stand by faith" (Rom 11:20) in the Olive Tree. And how can it not be about the Gospel Church when Paul's great hope was that he might "save" some of the Jews so that they too could stand by faith in Christ and so be grafted back into the Olive Tree? And what about the fact that the whole discussion climaxes with the statement "And so [in this way] all Israel shall be saved? Doesn't this prove that Paul was talking about salvation? Isn't this evidence decisive? Paul was in the Olive Tree. Paul was in the Church. Paul was preaching the Gospel. Paul prayed that his fellow Jews would believe in Jesus and so be grafted back into the Olive Tree and so be Christians. I don't understand how you can say that it does not apply to salvation.

And what then do you do about the argument given in the previous post where I showed that every member of the Church is a member of the Olive Tree, and every member of the Olive Tree is a member of the Church? Doesn't that prove that they are the same group of people? Do you have a refutation of that argument? And what about the parallel in John 15 where Christ is revealed to be the True Vine and we are the branches? What about the condition that the fruitless branches would be cast away and burned? Are not Romans 11 and John 15 teaching the same thing?

And as for "section of scripture that we have been discussing," the reason I brought up Colossians 1:21-23 is because you denied that the Olive Tree could be the Church based on the conditional "if thou continue." I refuted that argument by showing that the same conditional statement is applied by Paul to the Church in Colossians 1:21-23. Why did you ignore my argument? Did I, or did I not, succeed in refuting your argument that the Olive Tree can not be the Church because of the conditional statement?

Thanks for working with me on this Joel.

Richard

joel

09-24-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by joel
"If ye continue"........
Romans 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shall be cut off.
This is the section of scripture that we have been discussing. In no way do I see that this applies to our standing in God, which is our position in Him corresponding to justification by faith.

Richard, let me offer a rewording of the verse;

Be perceiving then the kindness (chrestotes, ST. #5544, moral goodness, integrity)
and the severity (apotomia, ST. #663, decisiveness, roughness, rigour) of God,
on indeed the ones falling (pipto, ST. #4098, to descend from a higher to a lower level, or lower place, probably akin to #4072 in the sense of alighting)
severity
on yet you (the) kindness of God
if, in case, you may be remaining (epimeno, St. #1961, to stay, abide, continue) to the (dative, resting in) the kindness
otherwise you shall also be sticken out (ekkopto, St. #1581, to cut out of a tree).

It speaks of God's moral goodness when the branches do not produce fruit and must be pruned. The pruning is for fruitfulness. We may also be pruned out of the tree if we fail to bring forth fruit.

In no way does this symbolize a permanent condition. God is displaying His kindness towards us in that He has placed us in a position of usefulness to Him which was once held by the natural Jews who were a part of the olive tree.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-24-2007, 08:36 AM

Richard, let me offer a rewording of the verse;

Be perceiving then the kindness (chrestotes, ST. #5544, moral goodness, integrity)
and the severity (apotomia, ST. #663, decisiveness, roughness, rigour) of God,
on indeed the ones falling (pipto, ST. #4098, to descend from a higher to a lower level, or lower place, probably akin to #4072 in the sense of alighting)
severity
on yet you (the) kindness of God
if, in case, you may be remaining (epimeno, St. #1961, to stay, abide, continue) to the (dative, resting in) the kindness
otherwise you shall also be sticken out (ekkopto, St. #1581, to cut out of a tree).

It speaks of God's moral goodness when the branches do not produce fruit and must be pruned. The pruning is for fruitfulness. We may also be pruned out of the tree if we fail to bring forth fruit.

In no way does this symbolize a permanent condition. God is displaying His kindness towards us in that He has placed us in a position of usefulness to Him which was once held by the natural Jews who were a part of the olive tree.

Joel
Good morning Joel!

If the Olive Tree does not represent salvation in Christ, why does Paul use it to explain his effort to get the Jews "saved" and why does he conclude his argument by saying "And thus all Israel shall be saved"?

The branches were broken off because of unbelief and the Bible tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that we are saved by grace through faith. Does this not mean that those broken branches have no faith and so are not saved? Of course we know that they can be grafted in if they abide not in unbelief, but that most definitely does not imply that their condition is not permanent as long as they remain in unbelief, and there is no indication whatsoever that every individual Jew is going to come to faith (since most already died in a condition of unbelief).

Richard

joel

09-24-2007, 01:38 PM

Good morning Joel!

If the Olive Tree does not represent salvation in Christ, why does Paul use it to explain his effort to get the Jews "saved" and why does he conclude his argument by saying "And thus all Israel shall be saved"?

The branches were broken off because of unbelief and the Bible tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that we are saved by grace through faith. Does this not mean that those broken branches have no faith and so are not saved? Of course we know that they can be grafted in if they abide not in unbelief, but that most definitely does not imply that their condition is not permanent as long as they remain in unbelief, and there is no indication whatsoever that every individual Jew is going to come to faith (since most already died in a condition of unbelief).

Richard

to the unbelief they are broken out
(dative)
yet you to the belief have stood
(dative)
They, Israel, currently abide in a state of unbelief. Their hearts have been calloused by God.

If what you say is true, then, because they have failed to believe, such belief being incumbent upon them, then, they must be cut out of God's plan.
This places the burden on the believer to make sure that his faith is the right faith, and he believes the right thing(s).

They were from a cultivated garden type of olive tree because of their heritage. We, the Gentiles, were of a different olive tree, one of a wild nature that would not be used to grow edible olives (fruit).

God, who created both trees, caused the branches in the garden type tree to be affected in such a way that they could not bear olives that are normal for a tree of that type. So, he cut them out. And, he grafted in branches from another tree, which is of a different type.

But, because the root is holy, fruit will come forth and hang from these in-grafted branches.

There is nothing special about these in-grafted branches. But, there is something special about the root.

God, who made both trees, made the choice to dis-enable (if we may use such a word) the natural branches. The callousness of Israel causes them to not bear fruit.

He, God, is looking for fruit. If the root is holy, the fruit must be holy as well, unless the branches are affected in such a way that the fruit is not brought forth. You are making it due to something within the branches that the branches caused to keep them from bearing fruit.........and how can a branch do that?

Salvation is not just the initial act whereby we get a ticket to heaven for performing a certain task, or saying a certain thing.....salvation is also, as in this case, the enabling process that causes the branch to bear fruit.

God is faithful to fulfill His promises, in spite of the lack of faith of one(s) to whom the promise(s) are made. Paul makes this clear back in Romans 3.

It appears to the outward eye that Israel has been discarded, or, in a spiritual sense, the promises of God have transferred to the "church".

What, then, is the perogative of the Jew, or, what the benefit of circumcision? Much in every manner. For, first, indeed that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. For what if some disbelieve? Will not their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God? May it not be coming to that!
Now let God be true, yet every man a liar, even as it is written:
"That so Thou shouldst be justified in thy sayings, And shalt be conquering when Thou are being judged." Romans 3:1-4.

They were entrusted with the oracles of God, and they did not believe. We learn from Paul's explanation in Romans 11 that their unbelief was caused by God. Is there injustice with God by His causing this to happen? Or do we believe that their callousness came unexpectedly, or by accident, or was self-induced?

If we read the remainder of Chapter 11 we learn that God has locked us all up in stubbornness. This is actually "unpersuadeableness". When a person is in such a state, that person cannot unlock the door and lot themselves out.
God has to give them the key.

You are placing the responsibility upon the shoulders of the person, in this case, the Jew. No one can be saved until God chooses to reveal His Son in them.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-24-2007, 07:57 PM

They were entrusted with the oracles of God, and they did not believe. We learn from Paul's explanation in Romans 11 that their unbelief was caused by God. Is there injustice with God by His causing this to happen? Or do we believe that their callousness came unexpectedly, or by accident, or was self-induced?

If we read the remainder of Chapter 11 we learn that God has locked us all up in stubbornness. This is actually "unpersuadeableness". When a person is in such a state, that person cannot unlock the door and lot themselves out.
God has to give them the key.

You are placing the responsibility upon the shoulders of the person, in this case, the Jew. No one can be saved until God chooses to reveal His Son in them.

Joel

Does the Bible really teach that God causes unbelief in people? I don't think so, but for sake of argument I will assume it is so, in which case it sounds like you are saying that people are in the Olive Tree only because God causes them to be in the Olive Tree. I presume then that you would say the same thing about the Church, correct?

So the idea that God causes people to be in or out of the Olive Tree is the same as the idea that God causes people to be in or out of the Church.

Thus, I don't see how your argument about the Sovereignty of God in election proves that the Olive Tree is not the Church.

As far as I recall, you have not refuted my argument that Romans 11 and the Olive Tree is all about salvation of Jews and Gentiles. It is important that you do so, because it seems like a valid proof to me. Paul prays that his brethren the Jews would come to faith and so be saved in Christ and grafted back into the Olive Tree along with the other believing Jews and Gentiles. And then he caps off his discussion of the Olive Tree by saying "And so all Israel will be saved." Doesn't that prove the topic is salvation and that the Olive Tree is the Church composed of all believing Jews and Gentiles? And what about the parallel teaching in John 15 where Christ is the True Vine and the branches that don't bear fruit are cast away and burned?

Richard

joel

09-25-2007, 12:11 PM

Does the Bible really teach that God causes unbelief in people?

Actually, none of us can believe God and His word until He moves by His Spirit to enable belief. (John 6:44)

He locks up all in unpersuadableness. (Romans 11:32)

There is none that seek God, and none that have an understanding. (Romans 3:11b)

He hardened the heart of Pharoah. (Romans 9:17,18)

Paul reveals in Romans 9, 10 &11 that God has made an election according to grace. He has chosen those who will be called during the eons to be conformed to His Son.

There is a remnant of Israel now at this time. The remainder were calloused.
When the fullness (pleroma) of the Gentiles comes in, God will move towards the restoration of Israel.

To them belongs the sonship (the adoption as it is worded in the AV), the glory and the covenants and the legislation and the divine service and the promises......as well as the oracles of God being entrusted unto them. (Romans 9:4,5, Romans 3:1, 2).

Paul teaches in Ephesians that before the disruption of the world, he made a choice of those who would be used to fulfill His purpose......these are the elect. Israel is called the elect in the old testament. And, now, during this current era, He is calling His elect out of the Gentiles. (Ephesians 1:4....and, he designated beforehand who would be the sons that would fulfill His purpose;........and in the fulness of time He would head up all in Christ....Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:9,10). These "all things" include things within the heavens, and, things on the earth.
The body of Christ has been blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavens in Christ......Ephesians 1:3. That is a higher calling than that which is on the earth.

You keep pressing me to answer your question......."Isn't the olive tree the church?"......before the body of Christ, the ecclesia of which Paul is the apostle, came about, the olive tree existed. If then it represents the church (the ecclesia which is His body), then, Israel, as it existed, must be the church according to your definition. But, that is surely not what you are saying.

Paul's dialouge, beginning with Chapter 9, and ending with the final discussion of Israel in Chapter 11, concerns the sovereignty of God and His choice of some as vessels of mercy, and some as vessels of indignation. If you want to characterize the tree as representative of all those who were chosen as vessels of mercy, vs. those who were chosen as vessels of indignation.., then, I can agree with that.......but, where you and I have a definite disagreement which persists, and will persist as long as we have this disagreement, is that such a choice by God is not permanent. It is temporary and fulfills an interim purpose so that, in the end, not only will all Israel be saved, but, all will be saved.....meaning all of mankind.

The salvation is incremental, following His divine purpose.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-25-2007, 02:25 PM

Actually, none of us can believe God and His word until He moves by His Spirit to enable belief. (John 6:44)

He locks up all in unpersuadableness. (Romans 11:32)

There is none that seek God, and none that have an understanding. (Romans 3:11b)

He hardened the heart of Pharoah. (Romans 9:17,18)
Hey there Joel,

It sure is interesting how every aspect of theology impacts every other aspect. The question of "What is the Olive Tree?" has now morphed into a discussion of monergism (http://www.monergismbooks.com/monergism.html)! But I don't think we need to hash that out right now ... I'm much more interested in the Olive Tree at this moment.

You keep pressing me to answer your question......."Isn't the olive tree the church?"......before the body of Christ, the ecclesia of which Paul is the apostle, came about, the olive tree existed. If then it represents the church (the ecclesia which is His body), then, Israel, as it existed, must be the church according to your definition. But, that is surely not what you are saying.
You are correct, that is not what I am saying. The "Body of Christ" as a designation of the Covenant People of God did not exist before Pentecost. But the Covenant People of God did exist, and they were the branches of the Olive Tree. Then when Christ came, the unbelieving branches were broken off, and believing wild branches were grafted in. Thus, all the branches are now Christians. The root of the Olive Tree is Christ, the first branches were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their believing descendants. The Olive Tree itself is the whole body of believers, which is the definition of the Church. Is there a false statement in this paragraph? If so, it might be helpful if you would point it out. That might get us past this log-jam.

Paul's dialouge, beginning with Chapter 9, and ending with the final discussion of Israel in Chapter 11, concerns the sovereignty of God and His choice of some as vessels of mercy, and some as vessels of indignation. If you want to characterize the tree as representative of all those who were chosen as vessels of mercy, vs. those who were chosen as vessels of indignation.., then, I can agree with that.......but, where you and I have a definite disagreement which persists, and will persist as long as we have this disagreement, is that such a choice by God is not permanent. It is temporary and fulfills an interim purpose so that, in the end, not only will all Israel be saved, but, all will be saved.....meaning all of mankind.

The salvation is incremental, following His divine purpose.

Joel

As I said above, every aspect of theology impacts every other aspect. Now the question of the identity of the Olive Tree depends on our understanding of both monergism and universalism (which actually go together quite well, to the chagrin of most Calvinist). But this presents a challenge for me. I can understand the Olive Tree as the Church without entering into these other debates. It seems so simple and clear because Jesus taught the same thing in John 15, or so it seems to me. So I don't know how to progress with the conversation. If you have any ideas let me know.

In any case, it's been a pleasure to work on it with you on this. Maybe we should go back to the "Symbol and Reality in Revelation" thread for a while and let this one simmer .... unless you have some new insights of course! In that case, I'd be delighted to continue.

Richard

joel

09-25-2007, 03:07 PM

Richard, as always, it has been a pleasure working with you concerning this last discussion. You are congenial, responsive, and so well informed.

I appreciate your site, especially the database, which I use frequently.

As we are in very interesting times, sometimes the world situation being of great concern, our interests as they are discussed are beyond this earth, and the general concerns of the world.

May God grant us an undestanding of consequential things. And, may He open our eyes to those spiritual issues that lie undisclosed to all who may be drawn to matters which will tend to confuse, and hide from us His grand purpose, and our part in it.

Grace and peace to you, and your family.

Joel

TheForgiven

12-24-2008, 07:03 AM

Dispensational teachers believe that Israel is currently under divine hardening of the heart (spiritual blindness). This hardness would have lasted more than 2000 years. But is this true? Is Paul's statement about "Temporary Blindness until the fullness of the Gentiles come in" still in effect today? No, it is not. The Bible teaches us exactly how long the spiritual blindness would last. Isaiah 6 reads:

Isaiah 6

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said:

“ Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!”

4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 So I said:

“ Woe is me, for I am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The LORD of hosts.”

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth with it, and said:

“ Behold, this has touched your lips;
Your iniquity is taken away,
And your sin purged.”

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:

“ Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?”

Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.”
9 And He said, “Go, and tell this people:

‘ Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 “ Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.”

11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?”

And He answered:

“ Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,
The houses are without a man,
The land is utterly desolate,
12 The LORD has removed men far away,
And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
13 But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.”

Isaiah is shown in verses 1-8, a prophesy about the chosen one (Christ) who says, "Here I am! Send me!" He is then sent in verse 9 to tell the people of Israel, "Keep on hearing, but to not understand; seeing, but not perceiving; make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy..." This is the prophesy about the hardening of the Jews. Jesus quotes Isaiah's prophesy and shows that the time of hardening had come true in His day, during His instruction to the Apostles:

Matthew 13:

13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’

I have shown that the time of hardening began when Christ fulfilled Isaiah's prophesy. But how long was this hardening supposed to last? Paul states roughly 5 to 10 years later, after Christ was raised, that Israel was experiencing a hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in. Futurist's insist that this hardening process is still taking place today. But is this Biblically true, or just an opinion? The answer is in the final verse of Isaiah 6:11.

Isaiah asks, "HOW LONG O'LORD?" in response to the hardening prophesy. Isaiah is asking how long this hardening and blindness is going to last.

God's response to Isaiah was:

Until cities are laid waste, and without inhabitant, the houses are without a man, and the land (Israel) is utterly desolate, and the Lord has removed men far away. The forsaken places are many in the midst of the Land (Israel).

Here we have the answer to how long this hardening process would last. It began with the words of Christ as shown in Matthew 13, but continues on through Paul's statement of Israel experiencing a temporarily blindness, and is completed when the cites are laid wasted, and the people are finally scattered. The Gospels were preached to the Jew First, and then to the Gentile. Those that rejected the gospels, tortured the Apostles, and who were also responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, were left hardened and blind.

When would this hardening period end? The blindness would be completed when the land (Israel) is left desolate and destroyed. Did this happen? Yes, it did, in the year 70-71 AD, when the entire city of Jerusalem was laid to waste. But why? Because the land had become utterly desolate and corrupt. Jesus states to them,

"Behold! Your House (Family) is left to you DESOLATE!"

He had no intensions on repairing what badly needed repaired. That's because He had another temple in mind. The temple of the Holy Spirit....our bodies.

As in the days of Old, the temple was rebuilt by a remnant. But who is the remnant that Isaiah speaks of? The last verse gives us the answer.

But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.”

The remnant according to Isaiah is referred to a 10th. Think 10% percent...as in, tithes. That's a symbol of what God did to the land of Israel. Although He destroyed it and left it Desolate, there remained 10% left of the tree, figuratively described as a terebinth tree, or an oak, which are trees with very strong wood, which after being chopped down, the root/stump would later begin to grow.

The "Seed" is Christ Jesus. But who were the remnant? Who was it that preached the gospels to the Jews first? The chosen 12. Who was it that preached the Gospels to the Gentiles until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in? The Apostles. The remnant that returned to rebuild the temple of the Lord were the Apostles, who first began preaching to the lost sheep of Israel, and eventually moved on to the Gentiles after as many Jews could be won over as possible. Those that continued to reject the gospels (in Israel) were left for judgment of the Great Day of the Lord.....70AD Destruction of Jerusalem.

In conclusion, I have shown that the time of hardening is not a 2000+ year old hardening of modern day Israel. It was a first century hardening to do away with the old, and establish forever The New. The former was over-taken by the final. The first was set aside to establish the second. God destroyed the many as He always did in the Old Testament days, and used but a small handful known as the remnant, to rebuild the city of David. Unlike the former kings, this city will never lose a King, and it's Kingdom shall never be plunged into darkness, as it was in the days of old. The time of hardening lasted from about 28AD to 70AD (estimated). Those that were marked for deliverance of the Great Day (144,000 sealed) were chosen until the message bore as much fruit as it could throughout Israel. By 70AD, the figurative number (144,000 thousand) were chosen to be spared from the coming wrath and destruction upon the Harlot city that rides the Beast of Revelation. Who was the Harlot? The answers should be quite clear. Apostate Israel and their corrupted (Desolate) temple.

Joe

joel

12-24-2008, 01:47 PM

[Isaiah asks, "HOW LONG O'LORD?" in response to the hardening prophesy. Isaiah is asking how long this hardening and blindness is going to last. /QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Joe]God's response to Isaiah was:

Quote:
Until cities are laid waste, and without inhabitant, the houses are without a man, and the land (Israel) is utterly desolate, and the Lord has removed men far away. The forsaken places are many in the midst of the Land (Israel).

The "secret" as revealed by Paul in Romans 11 concerned the duration of the hardening. Joe, you are saying that the "secret" is revealed when....."the cities are laid waste.....the forsaken places are many....."

If that is true.....then, the duration was no secret since Isaiah answered the question in the verse you just quoted.

Paul said the duration will last until the fulness of Gentiles comes in.......did that also occur in 70 A.D.? How?

Joel

TheForgiven

12-24-2008, 02:13 PM

The "secret" as revealed by Paul in Romans 11 concerned the duration of the hardening. Joe, you are saying that the "secret" is revealed when....."the cities are laid waste.....the forsaken places are many....."

If that is true.....then, the duration was no secret since Isaiah answered the question in the verse you just quoted.

Paul said the duration will last until the fulness of Gentiles comes in.......did that also occur in 70 A.D.? How?

Joel

Yes, the fullness of the Gentiles was completed by 70AD, and continues to be shared by men of all races since that time. There is no time limit for the Kingdom of Christ. Isaiah shows:

Isaiah 9:6-7

6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will beno end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.

The Kingdom of Christ (The Church / New Jerusalem) has no end. It is a complete Kingdom with new children being born to her everyday. Unlike the former Jerusalem which housed a king of flesh, the New Jerusalem has a perpetual King, who's light never grows dark (never sins), who's sacrifice atones for sin forever, and who rules forever and ever. She will never stop increasing.

Here is the building model based on the Futurist interpretation:

Jew first - Gentiles for a time - back to the Jews again - End of Growth

This is not scriptural. "The End" spoken of by Daniel is not the end of the world, but the end of the fleshly way of God's Kingdom. The Jews who received the first Covenant had until the end of the first Covenant to either accept, or reject Christ. Once Christ completed His mission, the 2nd and final Covenant was enacted forever; additionally it was sign, sealed, and delivered.

The fullness (or completeness) of the Gentiles was completed by 70AD. The ministry of the Apostles served their purpose. Paul's work among the Gentiles (as well as the other Apostles) had completed its course in bringing in the Gentiles.

When did the ministry to the Jews stop? In my opinion, it stopped when Paul shook the dust from his feet in protest against them, and he began preaching to the Gentiles. Did this mean the end of the road for the Jews? No, not exactly. For as Paul testifies, he magnified his ministry among the Gentiles to make the Jews jealous. Did it work? I'm quite sure that it did, as many more Jews were brought into the Kingdom. The rest, who continued to reject the Gospels, and persecute the Church, were marked for judgment of the Great Day which was fulfilled in 70AD (71AD).

The Hardness had completed its course, and the Churches expanded even more among the nations. The figurative 10% percent of the Jewish Christians continued to establish Perishes all over Asia Minor, of which seven were mentioned within Revelation.

What was the conclusion in all of this? What was predominantly a Jewish Church, had in fact become a world Church. Thus, the time of hardening was completed in 70AD, when the cities were laid wasted, and the people scattered abroad.

You say that this wasn't a surprise? I actually do not agree with that. It was only a surprise to those who did not believe. Those who knew what was coming obeyed their Lord and Master, to flee Israel and never to look back. That is why Peter exclaims, "The end of all things is at hand...." He was referring to his love for Israel. He knew that a New Heaven, and a New Earth was in the midst of mankind. A world that would not be governed by Judaism, but Christianity. The Church is the light of the world, and the city set on a hill for all to see.

Therefore, the model for us is this:

To the Jew First - An then to the Gentile

Remnant of Jews (30-70 AD) + Fullness of Gentiles (30 - 70AD) = The New Jerusalem

Joe

joel

12-24-2008, 02:49 PM

Joe, please be specific in clarifying a point;

fullness of Gentiles = x.

Joel

TheForgiven

12-24-2008, 03:13 PM

Joe, please be specific in clarifying a point;

fullness of Gentiles = x.

Joel

Fullness of the Gentiles = Church established, Harlot taken out, and Jerusalem is restored.

The Church is the New Jerusalem, just as the Church is the Bride of Christ. The New Jerusalem is not a physical city that would sit where the old Jerusalem was. Remember, this is a "NEW" Jerusalem. The old was done away with, and the New Jerusalem spans the entire world, vs. a small geographical location of the former. The geographical location is the "root" of the New Jerusalem (where it all began). They served as the tree stump after the tree was cut down. The remnants (Apostles and their Jewish disciples) were joined with the Gentiles, and after the Church was tested for a time, the Kingdom had proved it was ready after having been purified by suffering. Then came God's revenge upon those who caused trouble for the Church; both Apostate Israel and Rome.

Once again, the Remnant + Fullness of the Gentiles = New Jerusalem

From tree stump (Israel) to Fullness of Gentiles (regrown tree) = a new Kingdom which began spiritual rule when the Apostates city was done away with.

Have I explained this closer my dear brother?

Joe

joel

12-24-2008, 03:32 PM

Joe, thanks for the clearly stated answer.

Joel

Rose

12-24-2008, 04:08 PM

Dispensational teachers believe that Israel is currently under divine hardening of the heart (spiritual blindness). This hardness would have lasted more than 2000 years. But is this true? Is Paul's statement about "Temporary Blindness until the fullness of the Gentiles come in" still in effect today? No, it is not. The Bible teaches us exactly how long the spiritual blindness would last. Isaiah 6 reads:

Isaiah 6

1 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. 2 Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one cried to another and said:

' Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!'

4 And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
5 So I said:

' Woe is me, for I am undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The LORD of hosts.'

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a live coal which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth with it, and said:

' Behold, this has touched your lips;
Your iniquity is taken away,
And your sin purged.'

8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying:

' Whom shall I send,
And who will go for Us?'

Then I said, 'Here am I! Send me.'
9 And He said, 'Go, and tell this people:

‘ Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
Keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 ' Make the heart of this people dull,
And their ears heavy,
And shut their eyes;
Lest they see with their eyes,
And hear with their ears,
And understand with their heart,
And return and be healed.'

11 Then I said, 'Lord, how long?'

And He answered:

' Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,
The houses are without a man,
The land is utterly desolate,
12 The LORD has removed men far away,
And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
13 But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.' Isaiah is shown in verses 1-8, a prophesy about the chosen one (Christ) who says, "Here I am! Send me!" He is then sent in verse 9 to tell the people of Israel, "Keep on hearing, but to not understand; seeing, but not perceiving; make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy..." This is the prophesy about the hardening of the Jews. Jesus quotes Isaiah's prophesy and shows that the time of hardening had come true in His day, during His instruction to the Apostles:

Matthew 13:

13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:

‘ Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.’ I have shown that the time of hardening began when Christ fulfilled Isaiah's prophesy. But how long was this hardening supposed to last? Paul states roughly 5 to 10 years later, after Christ was raised, that Israel was experiencing a hardening until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in. Futurist's insist that this hardening process is still taking place today. But is this Biblically true, or just an opinion? The answer is in the final verse of Isaiah 6:11.

Isaiah asks, "HOW LONG O'LORD?" in response to the hardening prophesy. Isaiah is asking how long this hardening and blindness is going to last.God's response to Isaiah was:

Until cities are laid waste, and without inhabitant, the houses are without a man, and the land (Israel) is utterly desolate, and the Lord has removed men far away. The forsaken places are many in the midst of the Land (Israel).Here we have the answer to how long this hardening process would last. It began with the words of Christ as shown in Matthew 13, but continues on through Paul's statement of Israel experiencing a temporarily blindness, and is completed when the cites are laid wasted, and the people are finally scattered. The Gospels were preached to the Jew First, and then to the Gentile. Those that rejected the gospels, tortured the Apostles, and who were also responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, were left hardened and blind.

When would this hardening period end? The blindness would be completed when the land (Israel) is left desolate and destroyed. Did this happen? Yes, it did, in the year 70-71 AD, when the entire city of Jerusalem was laid to waste. But why? Because the land had become utterly desolate and corrupt. Jesus states to them,

"Behold! Your House (Family) is left to you DESOLATE!" He had no intensions on repairing what badly needed repaired. That's because He had another temple in mind. The temple of the Holy Spirit....our bodies.

As in the days of Old, the temple was rebuilt by a remnant. But who is the remnant that Isaiah speaks of? The last verse gives us the answer.

But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.' The remnant according to Isaiah is referred to a 10th. Think 10% percent...as in, tithes. That's a symbol of what God did to the land of Israel. Although He destroyed it and left it Desolate, there remained 10% left of the tree, figuratively described as a terebinth tree, or an oak, which are trees with very strong wood, which after being chopped down, the root/stump would later begin to grow.

The "Seed" is Christ Jesus. But who were the remnant? Who was it that preached the gospels to the Jews first? The chosen 12. Who was it that preached the Gospels to the Gentiles until the fullness of the Gentiles had come in? The Apostles. The remnant that returned to rebuild the temple of the Lord were the Apostles, who first began preaching to the lost sheep of Israel, and eventually moved on to the Gentiles after as many Jews could be won over as possible. Those that continued to reject the gospels (in Israel) were left for judgment of the Great Day of the Lord.....70AD Destruction of Jerusalem.

In conclusion, I have shown that the time of hardening is not a 2000+ year old hardening of modern day Israel. It was a first century hardening to do away with the old, and establish forever The New. The former was over-taken by the final. The first was set aside to establish the second. God destroyed the many as He always did in the Old Testament days, and used but a small handful known as the remnant, to rebuild the city of David. Unlike the former kings, this city will never lose a King, and it's Kingdom shall never be plunged into darkness, as it was in the days of old. The time of hardening lasted from about 28AD to 70AD (estimated). Those that were marked for deliverance of the Great Day (144,000 sealed) were chosen until the message bore as much fruit as it could throughout Israel. By 70AD, the figurative number (144,000 thousand) were chosen to be spared from the coming wrath and destruction upon the Harlot city that rides the Beast of Revelation. Who was the Harlot? The answers should be quite clear. Apostate Israel and their corrupted (Desolate) temple.

Joe

Excellent post Joe,:clap2: Very well put together.

We can tell from Romans that the blindness that Paul is speaking of is something that is already going on, he says " it is happened" the word happened [ginomai] is past tense. As you said, the hardnesss began with the words of Jesus in Matt. 13, and continued on till the fullness of the Gentiles was complete.
Rom. 11:25 "For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."
The fullness of the Gentiles was come in when the "Everlasting Gospel was preached for a witnessed to the whole world", that had to happen before the end.....that witness was complete by the time the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
Matt. 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Rev. 14:6 "And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,"
God Bless,

Rose

TheForgiven

12-24-2008, 08:25 PM

Thank you brother Joel. I hope that I was able to communicate in an easier manner. Sometimes I have so many thoughts going through my mind that I have to go back and read through, only to realize that I offered too much supporting detail.

And thank you too sister Rose for your complements. I'm thankful to be a part of such a wonderful forum. I hope that all of us are able to share our knowledge, as it is only right. None of us have received anything that the other did not obtain.

MY FELLOW CHRISTIANS

It was on this night that Mary was pregnant with child. Joseph and Mary traveled from city to city, obeying the instructions of the Lord. They traveled to Bethalaham in order to avoid being killed by the evil ruler Herod, in his attempt to murder all the first born of Israel. It was impossible to thwart the plans of God, for He is the ruler of all rulers, and His ways are past finding out.

With no place to rest, Mary was in deep labor and her husband Joseph tried desperately to find a place for Mary to have her baby. No place was available, except a small stable kept to house the sheep, and the goats.

Three wise men traveled far and abroad as they followed a strange star that seemed to shine brighter than all the stars. When they arrived, they saw the most beautiful tearful, yet joyous sight. The birth of our Savior.

Thus was fulfilled this night, the prophesy of Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

His name is Jesus, for he will save the world, and He is Christ, the Lord!

MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FELLOW CHILDREN AND MAY GOD BLESS YOUR NEW YEAR!

Joseph

Richard Amiel McGough

12-25-2008, 08:36 AM

MY FELLOW CHRISTIANS

It was on this night that Mary was pregnant with child. Joseph and Mary traveled from city to city, obeying the instructions of the Lord. They traveled to Bethalaham in order to avoid being killed by the evil ruler Herod, in his attempt to murder all the first born of Israel. It was impossible to thwart the plans of God, for He is the ruler of all rulers, and His ways are past finding out.

With no place to rest, Mary was in deep labor and her husband Joseph tried desperately to find a place for Mary to have her baby. No place was available, except a small stable kept to house the sheep, and the goats.

Three wise men traveled far and abroad as they followed a strange star that seemed to shine brighter than all the stars. When they arrived, they saw the most beautiful tearful, yet joyous sight. The birth of our Savior.

Thus was fulfilled this night, the prophesy of Isaiah:

Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

His name is Jesus, for he will save the world, and He is Christ, the Lord!

MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FELLOW CHILDREN AND MAY GOD BLESS YOUR NEW YEAR!

Joseph
My dear brother Joseph,

Merry Christmas to you my friend, and to all our friends in this forum. Isaiah 9:6 is probably the most asounding and exalted prophecy of the divinity of our Lord Jesus to be found in the Old Testament. It reveals the mystery of the Incarnation, a son is born (he is fully human) and his name "the Mighty God" (he is fully divine). God and man are joined in Him - the Mediator.

Richard

joel

12-25-2008, 09:46 AM

Blessings of a Merry Christmas to all of you......our dear friends at the Biblewheel forum.

As we continue to discuss the matter of Matthew 24:34......."the generation"....

I offer this observation for your consideration;

The callousness of Israel was foretold by Isaiah. It was a callousness in part and not a callousness of all.

In Matthew 13:14, the prophecy was fulfilled as acknowledged by Jesus when those of the nation would not repent upon hearing His words.......nor would they believe after seeing His miracles....the generation on hand at that time was undoubtedly the generation that began to see the fulfillment of all that Jesus said would occur.

It remains an extreme difficulty to believe that all things spoken were fulfilled (pleroo)........the text says that "all these may be coming"......the occurrence would ensue without regard for the amount of time to accomplish the action(s).

Surely, some of what Jesus said would occur did in fact occur in a completed sense to that generation. The text says that the events would "begin to be" (ginomai).....but it does not say that all of events will fulfilled (pleroo) to that generation.

Further, the verbs, one applying to the generation, and, the other applying to the occurrences are both stated in the subjunctive mood. This indicates that the action of the verbs will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances. The statements can be seen as conditional statements.

We know that if there were a national repentance, the Kingdom would materialize to them at that time. But, they didn't repent because God predetermined that only a portion of the nation would believe at that time.

We believe only on the basis of God's grace extended to us. They could not believe.......and.....their unbelief accrued to our benefit.

To say that their unbelief caused a permanent rejection of the nation is to deny a basic tenet of obedience......one which may be difficult for us.....but one which will be demonstrated by God......if your brother trespass against you.....and repent.....how many times and to what magnitude of his trespasses cause you to permanently reject him?

7.....or....70 x 7?

Joel

TheForgiven

12-25-2008, 06:46 PM

We know that if there were a national repentance, the Kingdom would materialize to them at that time. But, they didn't repent because God predetermined that only a portion of the nation would believe at that time.

We believe only on the basis of God's grace extended to us. They could not believe.......and.....their unbelief accrued to our benefit.

To say that their unbelief caused a permanent rejection of the nation is to deny a basic tenet of obedience......one which may be difficult for us.....but one which will be demonstrated by God......if your brother trespass against you.....and repent.....how many times and to what magnitude of his trespasses cause you to permanently reject him?

7.....or....70 x 7?

Joel

Paul states in Romans 10:

19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:

“ I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
20 But Isaiah is very bold and says:

“ I was found by those who did not seek Me;
I was made manifest to those who did not ask for Me.”
21 But to Israel he says:

“ All day long I have stretched out My hands
To a disobedient and contrary people.”

You have to keep in mind that God was completing His wrath upon a nation that rejected Him tremendously. But this sacrifice turned out to benefit the Gentiles (Roman Empire). God used their disobedience to bring salvation to the Gentiles, which would in turn, make them (the Jews) jealous and return to Him. But of those that would return, only a remnant would be spared. That is why the passage states, "ALL DAY LONG I HAVE STRETCHED OUT MY HANDS TO A DISOBEDIENT AND CONTRARY PEOPLE...." That wasn't the only time Israel had forsaken God. Remember, they had more than 500 years of disobedience, which were culminated upon the single generation that witnessed the birth of the Messiah, witnessed His miracles, yet rejected Him, pierced Him, and tortured those of whom He chose to preach about His Kingdom. That is why that generation suffered so much wrath.

It's not as though God was being unfair to them. He had a purpose, and that purpose was fulfilled. His purpose was to bring the entire world unto Himself; He wasn't focused on a single race. He chose one race (slaves) to set the example that even when they are made rich, they sin, and were thus no different that Gentiles.

What bothers me about modern day ministers is they act as though Gentiles sinners deserve more punishment and wrath than Jews of the flesh. Their reason is that those who were born within the blood-line of Abraham deserve more grace, as though God deals with man on the bases of race. Race was important prior to the birth of Christ because God wanted them to maintain the blood line in order to permit a holy birth of Jesus. If the Jews were permitted to mix their seeds (sperm) with other nationalities, then Jesus would not have been a Jew. But now that the Jew of all Jews has completed His purpose, and established His perpetual Kingdom, there is no longer a need for the Jews to remain true to their blood line. And that they haven't done for more than 2000 years now. There are no blood-line Jews in existence anymore. Any such idea is mere speculation and cannot be proved. How could a Jew today prove which Tribe he originated from? He can't, therefore it's not needed. Otherwise, God would not only have made it possible for them to do so, He would have also commanded it.

I know of no command by a prophet for them to return, rebuild, and restore the blood line.

Joe

joel

12-25-2008, 07:19 PM

[QUOTE=Joe' All day long I have stretched out My hands
To a disobedient and contrary people.'QUOTE

Your conclusions appear to place the ultimate burden upon the shoulders of the people.......when......it being prophesied beforehand.......how could it be any other way?

God has determined the role that Israel would play......just as surely as He determined the role Pharoah would play.....did the head of Egypt have a choice?

God calloused Israel........not because they would not believe........but so that they would not believe.

You are holding them responsible for the crucifixion of Christ, and allowing no provision for repentance......in such a way that their involvement determines that they would be eliminated from God's plan.

During the current era, individual Jews are brought into the body of Christ along with believing Gentiles.

During the current era, all believers are "in Christ" where there is no distinction concerning individual heritage. But, when you make that a finality, and do not consider the national aspect that lies ahead, your belief system forces all fulfillment into a small space of time.

I previously pointed out that there is a difference between pleroo and ginomai. And that the discourse of Matthew 24 concerns a wide range of events............the fullness of the Gentiles cannot be proved to have occurred in 70 A.D. The nations are currently receiving the blessings of the grace of God.......when God turns again to Israel and they repent......a new aspect of His dealings will unfold.

The "judgment" brought upon the people and the city and the temple cannot be compared to the tribulation that Jesus said was forthcoming.....such tribulation that has not occurred since the beginning.....and will not be repeated.........to say that this event has already taken place......and ask me to believe it is simply contrary to the textual presentation.

All has not been fulfilled (pleroo)..........that generation witnessed the beginning....not the end.

Joel

Rose

12-25-2008, 07:50 PM

I previously pointed out that there is a difference between pleroo and ginomai. And that the discourse of Matthew 24 concerns a wide range of events............the fullness of the Gentiles cannot be proved to have occurred in 70 A.D. The nations are currently receiving the blessings of the grace of God.......when God turns again to Israel and they repent......a new aspect of His dealings will unfold.

Joel

What will the modern day Israeli have to repent of that is any different from the modern day unbelieving non Israeli? They both live in a state of being cut off from God. All that is needed for an unbeliever of any race is to receive Jesus as their Savior.

The "judgment" brought upon the people and the city and the temple cannot be compared to the tribulation that Jesus said was forthcoming.....such tribulation that has not occurred since the beginning.....and will not be repeated.........to say that this event has already taken place......and ask me to believe it is simply contrary to the textual presentation.

All has not been fulfilled (pleroo)..........that generation witnessed the beginning....not the end.

I don't understand how you can say that the tribulation that destroyed an entire city in judgment, slaughtered hundreds of thousands Jews, and took the rest captive cannot be compared to what Jesus foretold was coming...:confused:

God Bless,

Rose

Silence

12-25-2008, 10:55 PM

gregoryfl

12-25-2008, 11:35 PM

Silence,

Very good questions. It is very late here, so I cannot spend a lot of time on those questions yet, but I can share this bit for now. One of the reasons why God chose to act in the way he did goes way back to something Moses wrote in a song. Listen to these words:

Deu 32:21 They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God.
They have provoked me to anger with their vanities.
I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people.
I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.

Paul applied this to the times that he was living in, showing that their going after other gods was at least one reason why he, in effect, turned the tables on them by returning on them what they did toward him. I know this does not specifically address some of the other questions you raised, but it does show why he wanted to move them to jealousy.

Ron

Rose

12-25-2008, 11:47 PM

I have been unable to visit the forum for a while and the discussion has moved on, but in reading a page or two back I remember one post that brought out the fact that as a result of Israel's "side-slip" (paraptoma in Romans 11:11) salvation came to the Gentiles, which is symbolized by them being cut out of the wild olive tree and grafted into the cultivated tree. Romans 11:11 makes it sound like the reason salvation came to the Gentiles was for the purpose of making the unbelieving Jews jealous in order to move them to faith and be saved. What if all of Israel had not rejected Jesus? Would salvation still have come to the Gentiles? Why did Israel's being cast away result in the reconciling of the world? Could God not have reconciled the rest of the world at the same time as Israel was coming to faith?

Yes, I think that if the Jews had received Jesus as their Messiah, His message would have still been the same, and the Gentiles would have been received gloriously. But because the Jews did reject their Messiah the Gentiles could then be used to provoke them to jealousy....even though God could have used any means He wanted to carry out His plan.

If Israel fulfilled it's destiny by "keeping the blood lines pure until the Messiah was born" why wasn't salvation offered to the Gentiles from the beginning of the apostle's ministry? Why did Paul go to the synagogues first and then to the Gentiles when they wouldn't listen? Why not ignore old distinctions and go to the Gentiles first?

Gentiles have always been free to become proselytes....if we look back at the lineage of Jesus we see two prominent Gentiles, Rahab (the harlot) and Ruth (the Moabitess) great grandmother to King David as part of Jesus' blood line.

Before the Gospel could go forth to the Gentiles the foundation of the Church had to be established, and that began with the Apostles.

God Bless,

Rose

gregoryfl

12-26-2008, 12:59 AM

Why did Israel's being cast away result in the reconciling of the world? Could God not have reconciled the rest of the world at the same time as Israel was coming to faith?Paul answers this in his letter to the Galatians, although in a veiled way he answers it in the 11th chapter of Romans, verse 36. The flesh, the shadow, was only meant to be temporary. Once it has served its purpose, it is put aside and the spiritual reality is what is left. Fleshly Israel served her purpose, and was put aside. By put aside, I do not mean that they no longer have any place for they indeed do, as Paul says "he has mercy on ALL." That includes those of fleshly Abrahamic descent. The spiritual, the fulfillment, of what Israel was is now in play, for all who are born from above as spiritual sons and daughters of God are counted as Israel, as Abraham's seed, in Christ.

As to the timing of his reconciliation, from God's perspective, all of what you speak took place on the cross, all "together with" Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection. From our perspective, each human comes to that realization in time, and so it shall always be, to the glory of God.

Ron

joel

12-26-2008, 06:24 AM

Let us keep in mind that there are more than one aspect involved in God's salvation in and through Christ;
1.) the individual aspect. Every person, individually, will be judged. The judgment of individuals, whether Jew or Greek, is described by Paul in Romans 2. In Paul's letter to the Romans, the first major portion of letter (ch. 1-8), deals with individual judgment.....and individual salvation.
Both judgment and salvation focus on the death of God's Son. If a person does not respond in faith to the gospel, then, at the time of God's day of judgment, a reckoning will occur concerning that person's status.

In this context, Adam and Christ are contrasted, and all of the sons of Adam, all of humanity are considered, and involved.

Jesus, the Son of God, was placed into death, and arose again. Reconciliation and justification (on an individual basis) result from His death, burial, and resurrection.....affected every human individual.

2.) the national aspect. The nations also face a judgment as described by Jesus in Matthew 25:32+. The basis of judgment for the nations is not the same as that for individuals.

Israel has been cast aside.....as if into the dead. But, will be brought back. Their casting aside is the "conciliation of the world".....the system in which the nations operate.

These are two separate, and distinct, features of the "conciliation" (commonly translated reconciliation) discussed by Paul.

3.) the universal aspect. Christ's sacrificial death.......in obedience to the Father....will extend into the creation.....that which is in heaven, as well as that which on the earth....and under the earth. The consummation, extending eons into the future, will finally be characterized with Christ turning over the reconciled universal system to His Father........what lies beyond that.......the heart cannot even begin to imagine.

Joel

joel

12-27-2008, 07:03 AM

Ron......you say that "fleshly Israel"....has been "put aside" so that the "fulfillment"...the "spiritual" Israel......may come forth.

There are others on the forum who would be more direct and say......"the church = Israel".

There are also those who seem to believe that the circumcised of the heart are now Jews, irrespective of the natural, fleshly descent.

So, now,.........we have "real Jews".....those circumcised of the heart.
and................we have "real Israel"....the spiritual fulfillment of the fleshly nation.

For the record,.......I do not agree.

Paul says there is the "outward Jew", and the "hidden Jew". Both of these are first natural Jews......a Gentile cannot be either.

Paul says that Israel will be restored.....as if from the dead......when the fullness of the Gentiles comes in........the church has a separate calling from Israel.

We've gone around this mountain numerous times, but, I wanted to make sure that you were aware of "my opinion" concerning these matters (which are not just insignificant trifles, but, things of consequence).

Israel is God's nation for the "eons"....the ages of time which He has allotted.

"For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, O Lord, art become their God'" (II Samuel 7:24).

"For ever" is the Hebrew equivalent for "aionios"........which is of an age. As long as the ages are running........Israel plays a part. At present, they have been set aside......but this does not mean that they, as a nation, will no longer play in role in God's plan.

I respectfully resist the notion that the church has become Israel. God will continue to deal with the nations as long as there are nations......and Israel will play a part.

The church, the called out assembly of God's people during this eon, has yet a different role. It is linked to the heavenly realms.

Joel

basilfo

12-27-2008, 07:44 AM

Israel is God's nation for the "eons"....the ages of time which He has allotted.

1 Peter 2:9 But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once [were] not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Joel,
Peter says that YOU are "now the people of God".

1. Who is the "YOU"?
2. Does God maintain two separate "People of God"? Does he keep two separate "holy nations"?

I have asked this before and I don't recall if we ever answered it.

Peace to you,
Dave

joel

12-27-2008, 08:32 AM

Dave, the letter (I Peter) was addressed to;

"the chosen expatriates of the dispersion" (I Peter 1:1),

chosen= eklektos, selected
expatriates= parepidemos, resident foreigners
dispersion= diaspora, Israelite residents in Gentile countries.

The Israelites remain in the diaspora throughout this current eon while the saving work of God is entrusted to the Gentiles through the called out assembly of believers consisting of both Jews and Gentiles as a joint-body people.

When God deems that the time is appropriate, those in the diaspora will be summoned home to that land promised to Abraham and his lineal descendants.

The elect are called. There are those who are the elect in each eon.

God is currently calling elect individuals into the body of Christ, the called out assembly......which will constitute the next resurrected company (Christ being the firstfruit).

In that day, He will call out from the four corners of the earth His elect people who will represent the nation, Israel. Israelites who are linked to Jacob......if He knows the number of hairs on your head, He surely knows who they are....

gregoryfl

12-27-2008, 08:56 AM

We've gone around this mountain numerous times, but, I wanted to make sure that you were aware of "my opinion" concerning these matters (which are not just insignificant trifles, but, things of consequence).

I understand the important implications which moves you to say what you do. I would expect nothing less than the passion you show.

Israel is God's nation for the "eons"....the ages of time which He has allotted.

"For thou hast confirmed to thyself thy people Israel to be a people unto thee for ever: and thou, O Lord, art become their God'" (II Samuel 7:24).

"For ever" is the Hebrew equivalent for "aionios"........which is of an age. As long as the ages are running........Israel plays a part. At present, they have been set aside......but this does not mean that they, as a nation, will no longer play in role in God's plan.
As we discussed when we met last week, we both understand the fact that "forever" does not mean "without end". I would offer a slightly adjusted definition of the word "olam", the Hebrew word found in 2Sa 7:24. The pictograph letters making up the word are:

ayin=eye,
lamed=shepherd staff,
mem=water

Taken together, they convey the idea of your eyes being led to see the edge of the water, that is, the horizon. The concrete meaning is looking at, or beyond, the horizon; in this case, looking out over the sea to the very horizon where it seems to end. One close English equivalent is "indefinite period of time". With this in mind, the verse you quoted I believe is to be understood the same way, not to indicate that they would play a role as long as there are ages, but simply that they would be a people to him for an indefinite period of time, a time which, in one sense, ended for fleshly Israel in the first century; yet, in another sense, continued on in spiritual fulfillment in the remnant that has always existed.

Other things are spoken of in this way, and we see the meaning is consistent:

Gen 17:13 With circumcision shall be circumcised the homeborn and the one acquired with your money. And My covenant comes to be in your flesh for a covenant eonian.

The covenant of circumcision would not serve as long as the ages were running, but for an indefinite period of time, until it was fulfilled by the spiritual circumcision Christ would bring, of the heart.

Exo 21:6 then his lord will bring him close to the elohim, and bring him close to the door or to the jamb, and his lord will bore his ear with an awl; and he will serve him for the eon.

This servant would not serve as long as the ages were running, but for an indefinite period of time, as long as he lived, until his days were fulfilled.

Exo 28:43 and they will come to be on Aaron and on his sons when they enter into the tent of appointment or when they come close to the altar to minister in the holy place, so that they may not bear depravity, and should die. It is an eonian statute for him and for his seed after him.

The Aaronic priesthood sacrifices would not last as long as the ages were running, but for an indefinite period of time, until it was fulfilled when Christ came as the final sacrifice.

Exo 29:9 Then you will gird them with sashes, Aaron and his sons, and bind up caps on them, so that the priesthood comes to be theirs for an eonian statute when you have filled the hand of Aaron and the hands of his sons.

The Aaronic priesthood was not to last as long as the ages were running, but for an indefinite period of time, until it was fulfilled when Christ came to be the permanent high priest, and we, the fulfilled priesthood of believers.

Jon 2:6 I go down to the fashioning points of the mountains; the earth, its bars are about me for the eon, yet You wilt bring up my life from ruin, Yahweh, my Elohim."

Jonah was not in the belly of the fish as long as the ages were running, but, to him, for an indefinite period of time, until 3 days were fulfilled.

2Sa 7:24 Yea, You do establish to You Your people Israel, to You for a people unto the eon, and You, Yahweh, have been to them for Elohim.

So, as I would understand it, Israel being his people, was not for as long as the ages were running, but for an indefinite period of time, until it was fulfilled when Christ came as the seed of Abraham, and all in him both Jew and Gentile, constituted as Israel, God's people.

I respectfully resist the notion that the church has become Israel. God will continue to deal with the nations as long as there are nations......and Israel will play a part.I agree with this. The church has not become Israel, the church has always been Israel. Within the many millions of those who were physically Israel, God always had a remnant of those he truly considered Israel. This was always the church.

The church was not a new thing that Jesus came to institute as a separate entity from Israel, but was the fulfillment of what has always been there the whole time. Only now it has been made plain and clear by putting aside the flesh. The flesh must be put aside, for it can have no part in the spiritual promises of God.

As an aside, when I speak of Israel, or the Jews, being put aside, I do not speak of them as a people being put aside, but everything concerning them of the flesh that they hold dear to. They as a people, I believe will be brought to salvation just as everyone else.

Ron

joel

12-27-2008, 09:24 AM

Ron, thanks for your insightful view on olam.

I am pleased that we are friends in Christ, fellow laborers in His service.

As we strive together to gain a more clear understanding of His wondrous plan, to have peaceable conversations that may contain differing views on certain issues is edifying and encouraging.

Grace and peace to you and to your family,

Joel

gregoryfl

12-27-2008, 09:47 AM

Thanks Joel. It is most edifying indeed. :tea:

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

12-27-2008, 10:28 AM

Paul says there is the "outward Jew", and the "hidden Jew". Both of these are first natural Jews......a Gentile cannot be either.

Actually, any Gentile could become a "Jew" by accepting the Old Covenant. Likewise, any Gentile can become a Christian by accepting the New Coventant. And how does the Bible describe Christians, whether Jew or Gentile? As the Circumcision, which is one of the Biblical definitions of a "Jew" -
Philippians 3:3 For we [Christians] are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. How do you understand this verse Joel? I think it would shed a lot of light on the converstaion if you could explain.

We've gone around this mountain numerous times, but, I wanted to make sure that you were aware of "my opinion" concerning these matters (which are not just insignificant trifles, but, things of consequence).

I respectfully resist the notion that the church has become Israel. God will continue to deal with the nations as long as there are nations......and Israel will play a part.

Joel
Yes, we have "gone around this mountain many times." And there is a reason for that. As far as I know, no one (and certainly not myself) has ever said, suggested, or implied that "the church became Israel." That would be a fundamental misunderstanding because it posits that the "Church" began as a separate entity and then "became" Israel, which is the exact opposite of what really happened. The word order completely changes the meaning. For example, consider the difference between these two statements:

1) The egg became a chicken.

2) The chicken became an egg.

Obviously, the implications of the two statements are radically different, and must not be confused. Now apply this pattern to the present confusion:

1) The egg (Israel) became a chicken (the Church).

2) The chicken (the Church) became the egg (Israel).

I explained this before, but unfortunatley received no response which is why, I suppose, we are continuing to circle the same mountain. Here is what I wrote:

I still resist the notion that the "church" has become "Israel".

Hey there Joel,

I too resist the idea that the Church "became" Israel. That is why in all our discussions over the last 18 months I have never suggested anything like that. My assertion is that Israel became the church. This happened when the believing remnant of Israel were sealed by God with the "seal of God" - the Holy Spirit - at Pentecost. This happened 50 days after Christ the Testator (Heb 9:16) ratified the New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Hebrews 8:8) with His own blood by His death on the Cross.

Will you respond to this post Joel? Is it not tedius to continue this journey around the same mountain without any resolution? I do not expect you to simply agree with me, but I think it is extremely important that we strive to agree upon the exact nature of our disagreement, which most certainly has nothing to do with the idea that "the church became Israel."

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

joel

12-27-2008, 12:25 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

12-27-2008, 02:20 PM

Richard....I apologize.....I didn't realize that we discussing.........Israel becoming the church.

I thought we were discussing.....the church becoming Israel.

I am thankful that we agree.............the church has not become Israel.

Your statement....Israel has become the church.......are we now discussing this?

Joel
Hi Joel,

There is no need to apologize my friend. We are just working together to come to a better understanding of what the Scripture teaches. We all fall short of the mark, which is why we need each other, as it is written:
Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour. 10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to help him up. 11 Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can one be warm alone? 12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken.
Did you understand my analogy about the egg becoming a chicken, and how that is completely different than a chicken becoming an egg? The idea that the "church became Israel" makes no sense because the "church" never existed as an entity separate from Israel. So yes, I think it is very important that discuss the question "Did Israel become the Church?". I have expressed my understanding of this many times, and as yet have never seen any reason to think that it is not true. Initially the church was entirely "of Israel." All the first believers were Jews (and Gentile Jewish proselites). And what distinguished the believing Jews (the Church) from the unbelieving Jews who happened to be natural born sons of Abraham (or proselites)? There is one answer - faith in Christ. Therefore, the Church from its inception was composed of the believing remnant of Israel which is naturally called "true Israel" because they alone were true to God and His Gospel. The unbelievers were cut off but could be grafted in again if they believed in Christ.

So there it is - it seems to be an historical fact that the believing remnant of Israel were the seed of the Church which then grew to include Gentiles, just as Gentiles could become Jews under the Old Covenant. And since a seed does not change its "kind" when it grows into a plant, so the seed that became the church remained "Israel." This is confirmed by the fact that the New Covenant was made with "all the house of Israel." And again, it is confirmed by the fact that Christians are called "the circumcision" and "Abraham's seed" and "heirs according to the promise." And there are many other Scritpures that seem to confirm this view, but I will stop here so the post does not get too long.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

gregoryfl

12-27-2008, 08:37 PM

So there it is - it seems to be an historical fact that the believing remnant of Israel were the seed of the Church which then grew to include Gentiles, just as Gentiles could become Jews under the Old Covenant. And since a seed does not change its "kind" when it grows into a plant, so the seed that became the church remained "Israel." This is confirmed by the fact that the New Covenant was made with "all the house of Israel." And again, it is confirmed by the fact that Christians are called "the circumcision" and "Abraham's seed" and "heirs according to the promise." And there are many other Scritpures that seem to confirm this view, but I will stop here so the post does not get too long.

Many blessings to you my friend,

RichardI love the seed analogy Richard. Thanks for sharing that. The only distinction I have in my mind, and it is a slight one, is that I would liken the outside of the seed, the seed covering, to fleshly Israel. The life contained within fleshly Israel I see being the faithful remnant. I illustrate is thusly:

Seed Casing=Israel after the flesh, Jesus in his mortal fleshly body; contained within her is the:

Life of the Seed=Faithful Remnant of Israel, Jesus the life-giving Spirit.

This seed, planted in Christ, did what every seed does. The outer covering died and out of it came the life, not only consisting of the faithful remnant from of old, but also all who are added to it afterward, both Jew and Non-Jew. I do see us basically seeing the same thing though. As Joel said, we are truly edified by such discussions.

Ron

Richard Amiel McGough

12-27-2008, 09:02 PM

I love the seed analogy Richard. Thanks for sharing that. The only distinction I have in my mind, and it is a slight one, is that I would liken the outside of the seed, the seed covering, to fleshly Israel. The life contained within fleshly Israel I see being the faithful remnant. I illustrate is thusly:

Seed Casing=Israel after the flesh, Jesus in his mortal fleshly body; contained within her is the:

Life of the Seed=Faithful Remnant of Israel, Jesus the life-giving Spirit.

This seed, planted in Christ, did what every seed does. The outer covering died and out of it came the life, not only consisting of the faithful remnant from of old, but also all who are added to it afterward, both Jew and Non-Jew. I do see us basically seeing the same thing though. As Joel said, we are truly edified by such discussions.

Ron
Hey there Ron,

That is an excellent amplification of the seed metaphor! :thumb:

And now it brings to mind all the "seed" teachings of the NT, as when Christ said that the seed must fall to the ground and die before new life could emerge:
John 12:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

And the Apostle Paul amplified this idea and connected it to the nature of our resurrection bodies:
1 Corinthians 15:35-38 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
And again we see the amazing unity of all theology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.

Richard

TheForgiven

12-28-2008, 09:44 AM

Joel,
Peter says that YOU are "now the people of God".

1. Who is the "YOU"?
2. Does God maintain two separate "People of God"? Does he keep two separate "holy nations"?
I have asked this before and I don't recall if we ever answered it.

Peace to you,
Dave

Brother Dave! You never cease to amaze me with the simple questions that hold so much truth.

If the scripture teaches that "we" are the people of God, then how then can there be two types of God's people? There is only one, just as He is One, and we are One in Him.

I wonder how it is that some believe the Church (God's People) are separate from Isreal (God's people). :confused2: My Bible teaches me that there is only one people of God, and these are those who are in Christ.

Great post brother Dave. I never get over some of the tough questions you propose.

Joe

joel

12-29-2008, 06:35 AM

Brother Dave! You never cease to amaze me with the simple questions that hold so much truth.

If the scripture teaches that "we" are the people of God, then how then can there be two types of God's people? There is only one, just as He is One, and we are One in Him.

I wonder how it is that some believe the Church (God's People) are separate from Isreal (God's people). :confused2: My Bible teaches me that there is only one people of God, and these are those who are in Christ.

Great post brother Dave. I never get over some of the tough questions you propose.

Joe

There are not "two types of God's people".

Study the word "laos" in the Greek scriptures.

Also, read again Hosea in the Hebrew scriptures.

Israel is God's covenant people as long as covenant is in effect. Currently, they are Lo-Ammi......not my people.

Where you see that the New Covenant has been put into effect, presumably with the Church,........then, the Church is the covenant people of God by your reckoning.

The covenant blessings of blood and body (bread and wine) are extended to the chuch........but the Church is not the covenant people of God.....we are a "new creation".

Joel

basilfo

12-29-2008, 06:58 AM

Israel is God's covenant people as long as covenant is in effect. Currently, they are Lo-Ammi......not my people.

Where you see that the New Covenant has been put into effect, presumably with the Church,........then, the Church is the covenant people of God by your reckoning.

The covenant blessings of blood and body (bread and wine) are extended to the chuch........but the Church is not the covenant people of God.....we are a "new creation".

Joel

Hi Joel,

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise. 29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, even so [it is] now. 30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

It appears to me that Paul (quoting Genesis) does not teach that Abraham's covenant continues on parallel to the New Covenant. Otherwise what is the meaning of Paul's illustration?

What does "cast out the bondwoman and her son" mean?
What does "shall not be heir" mean?

You seem to run these covenants along throughout history for thousands of years. That's what sets up 2 people of God, and 2 covenants, and that seems to clash with Paul's teaching. Please explain for me. Thanks.

Peace to you all,
Dave

joel

12-29-2008, 09:35 AM

You seem to run these covenants along throughout history for thousands of years. That's what sets up 2 people of God, and 2 covenants, and that seems to clash with Paul's teaching. Please explain for me. Thanks.

Peace to you all,

Dave, I do not believe that two covenants run parallel, at the same time.

The covenant with Abraham, and with his son, Isaac, and with his son, Jacob was extended to Jacob's twelve sons, and their families throughout the eons, until a new covenant is cut with Israel.

The first covenant is "waxing old". The flesh was the impediment as it was incapable of fulfilling the demands of the covenant. Such will not be the case when Israel's children receive a "new heart",,,and the laws are inscribed on their hearts and minds as promised.

We are not "under covenant", nor "in covenant",,,,,,,but, are "under grace" being "in Christ". You do not have a covenant between members of the same body, nor, between members of the body and the head of the body.

Because we are "in grace", and "under grace", we are partakers of the symbols of the new covenant, the bread and the wine which represent the blood and the body of Christ. We are subject to the "law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus".......under that law to Christ. But, Paul does not teach that we are subject to a covenant, either old or new.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

12-29-2008, 11:47 AM

The covenant with Abraham, and with his son, Isaac, and with his son, Jacob was extended to Jacob's twelve sons, and their families throughout the eons, until a new covenant is cut with Israel.

Hi Joel,

Could you explain how the "new covenant" will be "cut" with Israel? What will that involve? I thought that the new covanent was "cut" when Christ the Testator died on the Cross. What will be "cut" when God "cuts" a new covenant with Israel?

Richard

Rose

12-29-2008, 11:55 AM

Dave, I do not believe that two covenants run parallel, at the same time.

The covenant with Abraham, and with his son, Isaac, and with his son, Jacob was extended to Jacob's twelve sons, and their families throughout the eons, until a new covenant is cut with Israel.

The first covenant is "waxing old". The flesh was the impediment as it was incapable of fulfilling the demands of the covenant. Such will not be the case when Israel's children receive a "new heart",,,and the laws are inscribed on their hearts and minds as promised.

We are not "under covenant", nor "in covenant",,,,,,,but, are "under grace" being "in Christ". You do not have a covenant between members of the same body, nor, between members of the body and the head of the body.

Because we are "in grace", and "under grace", we are partakers of the symbols of the new covenant, the bread and the wine which represent the blood and the body of Christ. We are subject to the "law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus".......under that law to Christ. But, Paul does not teach that we are subject to a covenant, either old or new.

Joel

Hi Joel,

I am confused by some of the things you've said.

First, If the Old Covenant is waxing old.....that means a new is coming in. Hebrews clarifies that by saying that "A New Covenant has made the first one old".

Heb. 8:13 " In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

Secondly, what do you mean by "when Israel's children receive a "new heart" ? Who are Israel's children?

God Bless,

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

12-29-2008, 11:58 AM

We are not "under covenant", nor "in covenant",,,,,,,but, are "under grace" being "in Christ". You do not have a covenant between members of the same body, nor, between members of the body and the head of the body.

Because we are "in grace", and "under grace", we are partakers of the symbols of the new covenant, the bread and the wine which represent the blood and the body of Christ. We are subject to the "law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus".......under that law to Christ. But, Paul does not teach that we are subject to a covenant, either old or new.

Joel
Hi Joel,

I don't understand why you say we are not under the New Covenant since Jesus our Lord is declared to be the "Mediator of the New Covenant" and Paul confirms this saying that Christ is the "Mediator between God and man." Are you saying that Christ is not currently the "mediator of the New Covenant?" The idea that Paul did not teach that we are under the New Covenant seems to contradict his reference to Christ as Mediator in the same sense as we see in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:15-16 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 12:22-24 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Hebrews 8:6-7 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Galatians 3:19-23 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. 21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 ¶ But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

1 Timothy 2:3-6 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Richard

basilfo

12-29-2008, 01:05 PM

Dave, I do not believe that two covenants run parallel, at the same time.

Well, I believe that is what you are saying. The Abraham covenant ("old" or "first" covenant referred to in Gal 4) is still in effect for "Jews", and the New Covenant established by Christ in His blood at the last supper is also in effect for a different group of people (believers in Christ). That sounds like 2 covenants running parallel at the same time.

The covenant with Abraham, and with his son, Isaac, and with his son, Jacob was extended to Jacob's twelve sons, and their families throughout the eons, until a new covenant is cut with Israel.

Now this means that Scripture speaks of TWO "new covenants". One established by Christ in His blood, and one yet future with the Jews.
You will need to specifically provide Scripture support which points to each of those "NEW COVENANTS" for me to understand that.

The first covenant is "waxing old".

I think Rose gave Heb 8 as the reference for a covenant "waxing old". But I recall you saying that that was a ref to the Mosaic covenant (Law) not the Abrahamic covenant. Which is it?

We are not "under covenant", nor "in covenant",,,,,,,but, are "under grace" being "in Christ". ............ But, Paul does not teach that we are subject to a covenant, either old or new.

Christ and Paul both called it a covenant.

Peace to you,
Dave

gregoryfl

12-29-2008, 02:36 PM

Hey guys,

I am a bit confused. Am I understanding it right that the covenant given to Abrahamic is considered the same as the Law covenant given to Moses? That both are considered the Old Covenant? I posted why I consider them as separate covenants.

I think this is perhaps where part of the confusion lies?

Ron

basilfo

12-29-2008, 03:04 PM

Sorry Ron. I didn't mean to confuse. I don't see the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants as the same. I was asking a few things:

1. Is any other covenant besides the New Covenant established by Christ at the last supper CURRENTLY in place with any group of people? I say there is not. I believe Joel has said the Abrahamic covenant is still in effect with the Jews. Please correct me if I'm wrong Joel. I believe Paul clearly writes that we (believers in Christ) are "heirs to the promise" not physical, genetic descendants.

2. Joel has stated that there is a future "New covenant" which has yet to be established with Israel. I would like to see which Scripture tells us that. I believe all ref's to "new covenant" refer to a single New Covenant spoken of by Jesus at the last supper and Hebrews 8, and Jer 31:31. Does anyone see Scripture telling us there is a "new covenant" yet to come with anybody? If so, what chap/verse? We need to be specific and go from there.

Peace to you,
Dave

gregoryfl

12-29-2008, 06:14 PM

Thanks Dave, it just appeared to be that way from the way some of the posts were worded. That's why I had to ask.

I will expand a little more on how I understand the covenants.

1) The Noahic covenant, where God promises to never destroy the world by a flood again, witnessed by the rainbow, is still in effect and will never cease.

2) The Abrahamic covenant, where God promises to make a nation and group of nations from Abraham, and to bless all nations by means of Abraham, it being an unconditional promise, I believe is still in effect, we being a party to that covenant as children of Abraham.

3) The Law covenant, where God gives Moses his law and will bless them if they keep it, and curse them if they do not, I see as the only covenant known as the "old covenant." This is the covenant that was spoken of as passing away, no longer in effect.

4) The Davidic covenant, where God promises to always let a descendant of David rule as king. This covenant is still in effect, as Jesus is the permanant Kingly descendant of David, fulfilling that role forever.

5) The New, or Renewed covenant, where God promises to replace hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, putting his laws in those hearts, and not remembering sin anymore, is the covenant that replaced the Law covenant, fulfilling all the types and shadows of the physical, bringing about the reality of the spiritual. This I see as the same covenant that Jesus speaks of when he had the disciples drink the cup. It represented the blood of the new covenant, which blood he had to shed to bring it into existence. When he died, in that moment the new covenant was in effect.

For 40 years, while the temple stood, the good news went out as a witness to Christ, and while the old covenant was already gone in God's mind, until the final remnants of it were destroyed when the temple was torn down and sacrifices ceased, it was rightly spoken of as old, and passing away. In other words, the picture is of something dead and decaying.

Ron

gregoryfl

12-29-2008, 07:17 PM

As far as the new covenant being yet future, if the new covenant is the one ratified by the blood of Jesus, then he would have to shed his blood yet again. With covenants being "cut", the moment the blood is shed and applied, the covenant is in force. There is no example of a waiting period that I can think of.

Therefore, unless someone is saying that the blood of Jesus Christ was for a different covenant, then the question becomes, who's blood is being shed for the new covenant when it is ratified in the future? Since Christ's was a once forever deal, who does that leave?

Ron

Rose

12-29-2008, 08:20 PM

Thanks Dave, it just appeared to be that way from the way some of the posts were worded. That's why I had to ask.

I will expand a little more on how I understand the covenants.

1) The Noahic covenant, where God promises to never destroy the world by a flood again, witnessed by the rainbow, is still in effect and will never cease.

2) The Abrahamic covenant, where God promises to make a nation and group of nations from Abraham, and to bless all nations by means of Abraham, it being an unconditional promise, I believe is still in effect, we being a party to that covenant as well as children of Abraham.

3) The Law covenant, where God gives Moses his law and will bless them if they keep it, and curse them if they do not, I see as the only covenant known as the "old covenant." This is the covenant that is passing away, no longer in effect.

4) The Davidic covenant, where God promises to always let a descendant of David rule as king. This covenant is still in effect, as Jesus is the permanant Kingly descendant of David, fulfilling that role forever.

5) The New, or Renewed covenant, where God promises to replace hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, putting his laws in those hearts, and not remembering sin anymore, is the covenant that replaced the Law covenant, fulfilling all the types and shadows of the physical, bringing about the reality of the spiritual. This I see as the same covenant that Jesus speaks of when he had the disciples drink the cup. It represented the blood of the new covenant, which blood he had to shed to bring it into existence. When he died, in that moment the new covenant was in effect.

For 40 years, while the temple stood, the good news went out as a witness to Christ, and while the old covenant was already gone in God's mind, until the final remnants of it were destroyed when the temple was torn down and sacrifices ceased, it was rightly spoken of as old, and passing away. In other words, the picture is of something dead and decaying.

Ron

Very well stated Ron, :thumb:

First century Israel was at a unique time in all of history, the time of a New Covenant coming in while the remnants of the Old still remained. Many of the words that the Apostles spoke in their Epistles reflect that time of transition, and change....we must understand them as such.

God Bless,

Rose

basilfo

12-30-2008, 06:03 AM

TheForgiven

12-30-2008, 07:12 AM

I'd like to applaud everyone on here for your fantastic posts. Ron's illustration of the Covenants seems to be right on, although I do have a comment regarding the Covenant with Noah. God promised never to destroy the world again....of course the world was never destroyed; only the people who inhabited and polluted the lands with sin. This of course was repeated in 70 AD, but this time with fire. The sinful inhabitants of the land during the days of Noah were all killed by water. The likeness happens through Baptism into death. Our old sinful self was destroyed in the deluge (Noah), figurative for being buried in the waters of Baptism into death, and are raised to the newness of life (The Resurrection).

Brother Dave asks a great question regarding the genetically born Hebrew who still worship certain aspects of the Torah, yet reject Christ. Is there a Covenant still in effect for them? My answer is a solid, irrefutable, absolutely not, no way, no how, NO. :D Scripture says that "He set aside the first to establish the second......"

The first is done away with, while the second is perpetual and everlasting. Therefore, what ever Covenant the Hebrew's of today (biological that is) feel they are being faithful, is certainly not to God. For in rejecting the much better, and lasting Covenant, they (like anyone else who rejects Christ) will suffer the consequences.

Great post guys.

Joe

gregoryfl

12-30-2008, 09:52 AM

One question about the Abrahamic covenant: Do you see that covenant having any special significance to anyone alive today of Hebrew decent (specifically those who continue to reject Christ)?

I can see in Scripture that it is still in effect, as you said, but the heirs to that covenant are not genetic, but faithful. How can one be faithful to God while rejecting Christ?
DaveHey Dave,

The Abrahamic covenant has significance to everyone, as I see the "world" that Abraham inherited as being, not physical earth, but of Christ himself, and all people who make up his body. The promised land that Abraham was to receive I see as fulfilled in Christ. He is the promised land, and so are we. We live, and move, and have our being in him. He lives and walks in us. He is the land of rest, and in him are found all the innumerable riches that were pictured by the land of Canaan.

Having said that, anyone who does not believe, such as the Jews you mention as being in unbelief, can have no part in the land until they do believe. In their experience they are still in bondage. They are like that man in jail who has been set free and yet choose not to believe it. They are those of the inheritance, as we all are, who do not enjoy it as of yet.

I think of the Olive tree illustration by Paul in Rom 11. Your relationship with Christ is the only factor determining whether you (branches) are on or off the tree. Heritage is meaningless either way (on or off).

Very true Dave, God is done with national, fleshly heritage. All come on the same basis, by the Christ, to God.

Ron

Bob May

12-30-2008, 12:00 PM

Thank you Ron. Great summary of the covenants. One question about the Abrahamic covenant: Do you see that covenant having any special significance to anyone alive today of Hebrew decent (specifically those who continue to reject Christ)?

I can see in Scripture that it is still in effect, as you said, but the heirs to that covenant are not genetic, but faithful. How can one be faithful to God while rejecting Christ?

I think of the Olive tree illustration by Paul in Rom 11. Your relationship with Christ is the only factor determining whether you (branches) are on or off the tree. Heritage is meaningless either way (on or off).

Thanks again Ron.

Dave

Hi Dave,

I see things a bit differently having been in a Christian church that came to the conclusion that the way to Christ was by following the Law. We practiced yearly Atonement, Passover etc. Did not eat pork or any unclean foods etc., etc.
This all based upon one line of Scripture. "The Law shall lead you to Christ."
As far as we knew we were under the Old Covenant and being under it we needed a yearly Atonement for forgiveness of sins. We also knew that if we broke one Law we would, of course, be guilty of all.
Paul said if you be circumcised you become a debtor to do the whole Law.
This is because doing the whole Law is a requirement of the Law.
He said this to Gentiles.

He also said that Gentiles doing the things contained in the Law are a law unto themselves.

What difference does it make whether the Law is still in effect or not?
We live what we think and believe. If we have faith in the Law we have faith in the curses of the Law. It says nothing about the good things we do being able to "overide" the Bad things.

Whatever the Law is. It can be Catholic, protestant etc., etc. It is our reality.
Though the Hebrew Law is harshest. Whatever race we are doesn't matter either. What about "convert Jews?"

If we believe in the New Covenant your name will be written in the Lambs book of life.
If we don't believe in the New Covenant, we will be judged out of the "books that will be opened." That is because that person chose to be judged by their works.

Just my take,

Bob

TheForgiven

12-30-2008, 03:25 PM

Keeping with the discussion of this thread, I came across additional proof that could show Israel's blindness was for a reason, and caused by a reason. Let us turn to the gospel of John 12:

37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke:

“ Lord, who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?”

39 Therefore they could not believe, because Isaiah said again:
40 “ He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts,
Lest they should see with their eyes,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.”

The first thing that should come to mind is that it was "THEY" who saw the miracles, yet chose not to believe. They were prevented from seeing, and understanding, thus resulting in their disbelief.

Now skewing from this subject just a little bit, St. Paul spoke of the often present day theory that God purposely raised those of whom He would harden, so that He could use them to declare His grace upon those who are being saved. Does this mean that God just randomly picked a set of Jews to harden? No. Paul, wishing to prevent this idea, states the following:

Romans 10:22
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.....

Thus you can see that God didn't merely choose a group to be hardened, but bore with great patience the objects of His wrath. Therefore, it wasn't necessarily God who hardened them, but their sin hardened them, and God permitted them to remain blind; meaning He hardened their sinfulness in order to prevent them from repenting. Why? Because His patience apparently ran out....yes, it is possible to push the Patience of God. We have that testimony in the wilderness, when Moses led them through the red sea, and they were saved from Pharaoh. Yet God was displeased with their backsliding, and His Patience had run out.

Now getting back to the topic, the Jews who were blinded from seeing the truth (because of their willful sinning) witnessed all of the miracles of Jesus, yet they did not (could not) believe. Having shown this to be the case, how then could Israel of our day be hardened, if they were never given any sign, miracle, or wonder from Jesus? Why would God merely harden a future generation who wasn't there to witness the miracles He performed? Yet John shows that they witnessed all of the miracles, yet did not believe, THUS FULFILLING (according to St. John) Isaiah's prophesy of hardening.

And as I stated before, Isaiah clearly states how long this hardening would last....until the cities are laid wasted, and the peoples scattered abroad, and only a stump remains; the Holy Seed is the stump. This is none other than Christ Jesus. All of this was completed in 70AD.

What say you all?

Joe