Gentiles

[Beck]

As the words nation, gentile and mulitiudes of people relate to the greek word ethnos. Seeing that [Saul] Paul was sent to Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.


Acts 9:15
And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings -- the sons also of Israel; (YLT)

Some here has stated that the connection of these mulitiude of people 'ethnos' as being the lost sheep of Israel. Where these out cast of Israel where outside of the covenant promise and when God sent Paul he sent him unto these lost sheep.

Now one can interpret the uncircumsion of the flesh as Gentiles which is given in some detail in Ephesians.


Ephesians 2:11-12
11Wherefore, remember, that ye [were] once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, 12that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world;

This drives a question for me. In the case of Cornelius a man of the Italian band and one that prayed to God always. It seems odd that a Gentile would be praying to God everyday. Are should we understand that Cornelius is one of those out cast of Israel and among the children of Israel that is
uncircumsized? He has been given a good report from among all the nation of the Jews.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As the words nation, gentile and mulitiudes of people relate to the greek word ethnos. Seeing that [Saul] Paul was sent to Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.

Acts 9:15
And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings -- the sons also of Israel; (YLT)Some here has stated that the connection of these mulitiude of people 'ethnos' as being the lost sheep of Israel. Where these out cast of Israel where outside of the covenant promise and when God sent Paul he sent him unto these lost sheep.

Now one can interpret the uncircumsion of the flesh as Gentiles which is given in some detail in Ephesians.

Ephesians 2:11-12
11Wherefore, remember, that ye [were] once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, 12that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world; This drives a question for me. In the case of Cornelius a man of the Italian band and one that prayed to God always. It seems odd that a Gentile would be praying to God everyday. Are should we understand that Cornelius is one of those out cast of Israel and among the children of Israel that is uncircumsized? He has been given a good report from among all the nation of the Jews.
I'm not sure I accept the premises of the question.

1) I see nothing unusually about a Gentile praying to the God of Israel every day. He could have wanted to convert but feared the knife (circumcision as an adult is a daunting thought!).

2) Jews were human. If it's not "odd" that a Jew might pray every day, I see no reason to think it odd for a Gentile. We see religious devotion amongst all human groups.

3) The concept of children of Israel "hidden" amongst the Gentiles, with Gentile names like "Cornelius" and Gentile wives and Gentile parents and grandparents is logically incoherent.

Did I misunderstand the question?

[Beck]

I'm not sure I accept the premises of the question.

1) I see nothing unusually about a Gentile praying to the God of Israel every day. He could have wanted to convert but feared the knife (circumcision as an adult is a daunting thought!).

So you see no reason to accept that the word ethnos could perhaps mean the lost tribes of Israel being gathered to gather unto one new man?

Where can you point to in scripture that would help understand that a pagan Gentile believing in the God of Israel that he might pray to every day?

For instance if Cornelius prayed to the God of Israel and the Jews give him a good report why then did they reject the pagan Gentiles in so much that God had to show Peter in a vison to except them?



2) Jews were human. If it's not "odd" that a Jew might pray every day, I see no reason to think it odd for a Gentile. We see religious devotion amongst all human groups.
But praying to the God of Israel? Even without the gospel going to the pagan Gentiles they where aready praying to God?



3) The concept of children of Israel "hidden" amongst the Gentiles, with Gentile names like "Cornelius" and Gentile wives and Gentile parents and grandparents is logically incoherent.

Did I misunderstand the question?

It's that the concept found in Revelation that of the city Jerusalem given it's 12 foundations as the Apostles and 12 gates the names of the 12 tribes of Israel. So that the gates would be open to allow those saved ethnos to come in through the gates of the city. Noting that those out cast of Israel where forbidding to enter the earthly city, but allowed to enter the heavenly Jersusalem.

I don't think you misunderstood my question, perhaps disagree with the premises. That okay I'm just trying to get a better picture.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So you see no reason to accept that the word ethnos could perhaps mean the lost tribes of Israel being gathered to gather unto one new man?

That's right.

There are no "lost tribes" so the concept doesn't make sense to me.

If we are to believe there are "lost tribes" then we have to define what we mean. I think we should camp on this point for a moment.

The ten northern tribes of Israel were exiled from the land in the 8th century BC. What happened to them? They interbred with Gentiles until now they are genetically indistinguishable from Gentiles. I've seen some documentaries suggesting that some ethnic groups in Africa and India may have been descendants of some of the lost tribes. The folks looked exactly like the "natives." If they were originally a "lost tribe" they now were genetically mixed with the Gentiles, which means that the Gentiles had the DNA of Israel, so there was nothing to distinguish them anymore.

Are you familiar with population dynamics? It turns out that we are all cousins. Go back just a couple thousand years, and almost every living person shares common ancestors. So there is no genetic argument for the lost tribes, and obviously, they have not retained their identities as an ethnic group, so I conclude that they simply do not exist.

Great chatting,

Richard

[joel]

This drives a question for me. In the case of Cornelius a man of the Italian band and one that prayed to God always. It seems odd that a Gentile would be praying to God everyday. Are should we understand that Cornelius is one of those out cast of Israel and among the children of Israel that is
uncircumsized? He has been given a good report from among all the nation of the Jews.


It may be that Cornelius was a proselyte, a Gentile who was worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. See Strong's #4339. You will note that there were two classes of proselytes as described in Strong's definition. If so, then Cornelius was probably a "proselyte of the gate".........I say this because when his servants went to find Peter.....they stood before the gate (Acts 10:17) alluding to the fact that as such they could only approach Peter at a distance........just as the proselytes of the gate were limited in the access to the Temple.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It may be that Cornelius was a proselyte, a Gentile who was worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. See Strong's #4339. You will note that there were two classes of proselytes as described in Strong's definition. If so, then Cornelius was probably a "proselyte of the gate".........I say this because when his servants went to find Peter.....they stood before the gate (Acts 10:17) alluding to the fact that as such they could only approach Peter at a distance........just as the proselytes of the gate were limited in the access to the Temple.

Joel
Hey Joel,

That's an interesting insight! I had never noticed it before: Here's the definition:
προσηλυτος proselutos {pros-ay'-loo-tos} from the alternate of 4334; TDNT - 6:727,943; adj AV - proselyte 4; 4 1) a newcomer 1a) a stranger, alien 2) a proselyte 2a) one who has come over from a Gentile religion to Judaism The Rabbis distinguished two classes of proselytes, proselytes of righteousness, who received circumcision and bound themselves to keep the whole of the Mosaic law and to comply with all the requirements of Judaism, and proselytes of the gate, who dwelt among the Jews, and although uncircumcised observed certain specific laws, esp. the seven precepts of Noah, i.e. against the seven chief sins, idolatry, blasphemy against God, homicide, unchastity, theft or plundering, rebellion against rulers and the use of flesh with the blood thereof.
Thanks!

BTW - what do you think of this verse quoted by Beck?
Acts 9:15
And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings -- the sons also of Israel; (YLT)
Does that have any impact on your understanding of Paul as only the "Apostle to the Gentiles"? Is it not clear that his ministry went to both Jews and Gentiles?

All the best,

Richard

[Beck]

BTW - what do you think of this verse quoted by Beck?
Acts 9:15
And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings -- the sons also of Israel; (YLT)
Does that have any impact on your understanding of Paul as only the "Apostle to the Gentiles"? Is it not clear that his ministry went to both Jews and Gentiles?

All the best,

Richard

That is very interesting and great insight Joel about the gate. It brings more meaning and understanding to that passage.

Richard, I notice that Paul on his journeys went first to the synagogues of the Jews. Maybe these are what is in reference as the children of Israel as well the word ethnos, which in the simplest meaning is mulitiudes as the children of Abraham is to be as the sand of the sea.

Was Saul not born a Hebrew as well having the rights of the Roman's?

[joel]

BTW - what do you think of this verse quoted by Beck?
Acts 9:15
And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings -- the sons also of Israel; (YLT)

Does that have any impact on your understanding of Paul as only the "Apostle to the Gentiles"? Is it not clear that his ministry went to both Jews and Gentiles?



Yes....I believe Paul's ministry was to both Jews and Gentiles throughout the Acts account. He always sought out the synagogue whenever he entered into a city. He spoke to the Jews first in delivering the gospel.

But, as was first foretold by Isaiah, and later confirmed by Jesus......the Jews were hardened in their hearts having ears that would not hear, and eyes that would not see......and so they, except for a remnant, would not be converted.

In the last chapter of Acts (28), certain Jews came to Paul in Rome and sought to understand his message and his role........again, Paul cited the same words of Isaiah (ch 6), and when they could not receive his message, returned in their unbelief, and he, Paul, then turned to the nations which was his chosen role to fulfill.

This was all in accord with God's plan....the Jews would reject the gospel, except for the remnant of them who would believe Peter's preaching, and then the gospel would preached to the Gentiles by Paul and others.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes....I believe Paul's ministry was to both Jews and Gentiles throughout the Acts account. He always sought out the synagogue whenever he entered into a city. He spoke to the Jews first in delivering the gospel.

But, as was first foretold by Isaiah, and later confirmed by Jesus......the Jews were hardened in their hearts having ears that would not hear, and eyes that would not see......and so they, except for a remnant, would not be converted.

In the last chapter of Acts (28), certain Jews came to Paul in Rome and sought to understand his message and his role........again, Paul cited the same words of Isaiah (ch 6), and when they could not receive his message, returned in their unbelief, and he, Paul, then turned to the nations which was his chosen role to fulfill.

This was all in accord with God's plan....the Jews would reject the gospel, except for the remnant of them who would believe Peter's preaching, and then the gospel would preached to the Gentiles by Paul and others.

Joel
OK - but how is that supposed to impact our understanding of his teachings? Were not all his letters meant to instruct both Jews and Gentiles? If not, why not? When I read Romans, for example, I see Jews addressed by name in one passage, and Gentiles in another. It seems pretty clear that there were no "Jews or Gentiles" in Paul's teachings, except in the sense of the facts about their background. When it comes to Christ and the Gospel, there are only believers and unbelievers.

[joel]

OK - but how is that supposed to impact our understanding of his teachings? Were not all his letters meant to instruct both Jews and Gentiles? If not, why not? When I read Romans, for example, I see Jews addressed by name in one passage, and Gentiles in another. It seems pretty clear that there were no "Jews or Gentiles" in Paul's teachings, except in the sense of the facts about their background. When it comes to Christ and the Gospel, there are only believers and unbelievers.

Your question, Dear Richard, the lion-hearted one,
is so important......and so.........it should not be taken lightly.

The teachings of Paul.....are they meant to instruct both the Jews and the Gentiles?.......if not......why not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my belief that Paul's teachings are directed towards the Gentiles at this present time (and.....also to those of Israel who may be called accordingly).

He (Paul) made direct statements concerning the Jews.......and when they did not believe.....but rejected the gospel as concerning the Christ, Jesus, the annointed One.....then,............

even though, in Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, in their relationship as to the worship of God, such distinction still remained..

As you said.......there is distinction between believers........(I see this as......the Gentiles....and the Jews).....there remains a distinction between Sons.......one which comes from Israel.....and one.....which comes from the Gentiles.

This, I see, is the distinction between our beliefs.
I see two sons.......both of which come from a union of Isaac and Rachel.... one Esau.....and the other....Jacob.

Each is blessed of God.

Each has a calling, and a destiny.

One cannot displace the other.

The difference in what we believe is that..........
the Jews are one..........
we, the Gentiles are the other.
You do not seem to believe this.

Joel

[gilgal]

As the words nation, gentile and mulitiudes of people relate to the greek word ethnos. Seeing that [Saul] Paul was sent to Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel.


Acts 9:15
And the Lord said unto him, `Be going on, because a choice vessel to Me is this one, to bear My name before nations and kings -- the sons also of Israel; (YLT)

Some here has stated that the connection of these mulitiude of people 'ethnos' as being the lost sheep of Israel. Where these out cast of Israel where outside of the covenant promise and when God sent Paul he sent him unto these lost sheep.

Now one can interpret the uncircumsion of the flesh as Gentiles which is given in some detail in Ephesians.


Ephesians 2:11-12
11Wherefore, remember, that ye [were] once the nations in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, 12that ye were at that time apart from Christ, having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God, in the world;

This drives a question for me. In the case of Cornelius a man of the Italian band and one that prayed to God always. It seems odd that a Gentile would be praying to God everyday. Are should we understand that Cornelius is one of those out cast of Israel and among the children of Israel that is
uncircumsized? He has been given a good report from among all the nation of the Jews.
Is it a coincidence that many passages of circumcision have the number 11 involved?


Acts 11:2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Galatians 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Colossians 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Colossians 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Colossians 4:11 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only [are my] fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

[gilgal]

That is very interesting and great insight Joel about the gate. It brings more meaning and understanding to that passage.

Richard, I notice that Paul on his journeys went first to the synagogues of the Jews. Maybe these are what is in reference as the children of Israel as well the word ethnos, which in the simplest meaning is mulitiudes as the children of Abraham is to be as the sand of the sea.

Was Saul not born a Hebrew as well having the rights of the Roman's?
Contrary to the rest of the apostles Saul was born and lived outside of Israel, Tarsus the capital of Cilicia.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
At a perfect timing did God intervene, only when he was headed toward Damascus.
After his conversion he only went to Jerusalem/Israel for a meeting in Acts 15 and I think Acts 21-22 for his Nazirite vow (I think since he shaved his head). But his focus throughout Acts was Jews and Gentiles outside Israel.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Contrary to the rest of the apostles Saul was born and lived outside of Israel, Tarsus the capital of Cilicia.

At a perfect timing did God intervene, only when he was headed toward Damascus.
After his conversion he only went to Jerusalem/Israel for a meeting in Acts 15 and I think Acts 21-22 for his Nazirite vow (I think since he shaved his head). But his focus throughout Acts was Jews and Gentiles outside Israel.
Those are interesting observations. But I wonder, are they supposed to give us insight as to how to understand his teachings?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Your question, Dear Richard, the lion-hearted one,
is so important......and so.........it should not be taken lightly.

The teachings of Paul.....are they meant to instruct both the Jews and the Gentiles?.......if not......why not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my belief that Paul's teachings are directed towards the Gentiles at this present time (and.....also to those of Israel who may be called accordingly).

He (Paul) made direct statements concerning the Jews.......and when they did not believe.....but rejected the gospel as concerning the Christ, Jesus, the annointed One.....then,............

even though, in Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, in their relationship as to the worship of God, such distinction still remained..

As you said.......there is distinction between believers........(I see this as......the Gentiles....and the Jews).....there remains a distinction between Sons.......one which comes from Israel.....and one.....which comes from the Gentiles.

This, I see, is the distinction between our beliefs.
I see two sons.......both of which come from a union of Isaac and Rachel.... one Esau.....and the other....Jacob.

Each is blessed of God.

Each has a calling, and a destiny.

One cannot displace the other.

The difference in what we believe is that..........
the Jews are one..........
we, the Gentiles are the other.
You do not seem to believe this.

Joel
Ah ... Joel, you are a Mighty Marathon Runner - you have persisted in this for a very long time. I hope we will gain more mutual understanding this time round the mountain.

The doctrine of "Two Sons" is entirely new to me. Did you learn this somewhere, or did it originate with you?

Of course, now that I think about it, it looks like the standard Dispensational doctrine of "Two Peoples of God" with two different destinies. The "Church" and "Israel" - and never the two shall meet.

As you know, I think this is a fundamental error and I have explained why so many times, I have no idea what remains to be said. To my knowledge, the reasons I presented were never refuted, just ignored. I am mystified why you remain so adamant about a doctrine that has never been established in Scripture.

So where should we start? Perhaps the most effective way would be for me to state my understanding of your doctrines, and you can tell me if I got it right or not.

If I recall correctly, you believe Christians in this age have a "heavenly calling" while literal physical Israel will have an "earthly calling" in the future. And you see a future sequence yet to be fulfilled:

1) We are in the church age.

2) The church age will end with the Rapture when God will "take up" all believers (Jew and Gentile) to be with him in heaven. This is because they have the "heavenly calling."

3) Immediately after the Rapture God will turn his attention to physical Israel - meaning the people and land inhabiting the modern nation that goes by that name. They have the "earthly calling."

4) Some things (???) will happen that lead up to Christ's return, along with his raptured saints (or do they remain in heaven in their "heavenly calling"?), and he will set up a literal physical kingdom in Israel and Christ will physically rule from a physical "throne of David" in Israel and the physical descendants of Abraham will be converted to believe in him and they will administer some sort of "earthly" kingdom.

I know that's a pretty rough outline. I'm sorry if I've mangled it. But now you know what needs correcting. It would be very helpful if you stated you beliefs as briefly and clearly as possible.

Thanks!

Richard

[Beck]

Is it a coincidence that many passages of circumcision have the number 11 involved?

I'm not sure of your point?

[gilgal]

I'm not sure of your point?
Off topic. I was referring to the biblewheel. Never mind.

[Beck]

After Assyria's invasion the ten tribes are absorbed into the pagan Gentiles. So, calling them Gentiles was a slander. They'd become just like the rest of the animals. However, Hosea clearly says that on that day they'd be brought back.(Hosea 1:10-11) Likewise does Ezekiel speaking of Two Sticks becoming One.(Ezekiel 37:15-23) A symbol of Marriage. Likewise Isaiah, Hebrews and even Revelation.

It's clear in Romans 9 that he is talking about the natural branches and the wild branches being the Jews and the 10 Northern tribes (this becomes clear by understanding the passages from Hosea and Isaiah that Paul quotes).

Once all the grafting is done, "so all Israel will be saved." The mystery of how this works is the one that Paul is constantly talking about. It was always unclear how God was going to pull off what He promised with these two prophets.

The word gowy #1471 Old Testament,which is translated as Nations, Gentiles, Heathen, People, and also the word ethnos #1484 NT, which is translated the same, Nations, Gentiles, Heathen, People.

John 10:16: Jesus is talking to Judah...the "other sheep" he is referring to is probably the Northern tribes of Israel.

Matt 28:19..Go teach all Nations (Gr. ethnos=translated as Nations, Gentiles, Heathen, People) again is referring to the other tribes of Israel.

Romans 1:16: "also to the Greeks".
Again, this to the tribes of Israel that had scattered to Greece.

Romans 2:9-10: "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile" (again the word ethnos) same as above.

Gal.3:28: Couldn't it just be about the regathering of ALL Israel? No difference between the Jews [judah]and the other tribes of Israel? The rejoining of the two sticks into one stick??

Ezekiel 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.


And the Northern tribes were considered barbarians by the Jews.

If the Gentiles are all non-Israelites, then the inspired writers of the New Testament epistles misidentified their audience. The audience Hebrews to its writer is inarguable, in fact, Hebrews 8 quotes Hosea – a prophet to the dispersed House of Israel - directly. The audience of Romans were Israelites (Romans 4:1, Romans 4:16.) The Corinthians to whom Paul wrote were Israelites (1 Corinthians 10:1) but were also called Gentiles (1 Corinthians 12:2)

The target of the ministry of Jesus and His disciples were the Gentiles; the lost sheep of the house of Israel, who were scattered among the nations. They had become uncircumsized heathen - "not a people." Though "gentilized," the diaspora was to be once again a people Hosea 1:10, and restored with the remnant of Judah.

At lease that is how I'm understanding the picture given to us through the prophets.

[gilgal]

After Assyria's invasion the ten tribes are absorbed into the pagan Gentiles. So, calling them Gentiles was a slander. They'd become just like the rest of the animals. However, Hosea clearly says that on that day they'd be brought back.(Hosea 1:10-11) Likewise does Ezekiel speaking of Two Sticks becoming One.(Ezekiel 37:15-23) A symbol of Marriage. Likewise Isaiah, Hebrews and even Revelation.

It's clear in Romans 9 that he is talking about the natural branches and the wild branches being the Jews and the 10 Northern tribes (this becomes clear by understanding the passages from Hosea and Isaiah that Paul quotes).

Once all the grafting is done, "so all Israel will be saved." The mystery of how this works is the one that Paul is constantly talking about. It was always unclear how God was going to pull off what He promised with these two prophets.

The word gowy #1471 Old Testament,which is translated as Nations, Gentiles, Heathen, People, and also the word ethnos #1484 NT, which is translated the same, Nations, Gentiles, Heathen, People.

John 10:16: Jesus is talking to Judah...the "other sheep" he is referring to is probably the Northern tribes of Israel.

Matt 28:19..Go teach all Nations (Gr. ethnos=translated as Nations, Gentiles, Heathen, People) again is referring to the other tribes of Israel.

Romans 1:16: "also to the Greeks".
Again, this to the tribes of Israel that had scattered to Greece.

Romans 2:9-10: "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile" (again the word ethnos) same as above.

Gal.3:28: Couldn't it just be about the regathering of ALL Israel? No difference between the Jews [judah]and the other tribes of Israel? The rejoining of the two sticks into one stick??

Ezekiel 37:17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.


And the Northern tribes were considered barbarians by the Jews.

If the Gentiles are all non-Israelites, then the inspired writers of the New Testament epistles misidentified their audience. The audience Hebrews to its writer is inarguable, in fact, Hebrews 8 quotes Hosea – a prophet to the dispersed House of Israel - directly. The audience of Romans were Israelites (Romans 4:1, Romans 4:16.) The Corinthians to whom Paul wrote were Israelites (1 Corinthians 10:1) but were also called Gentiles (1 Corinthians 12:2)

The target of the ministry of Jesus and His disciples were the Gentiles; the lost sheep of the house of Israel, who were scattered among the nations. They had become uncircumsized heathen - "not a people." Though "gentilized," the diaspora was to be once again a people Hosea 1:10, and restored with the remnant of Judah.

At lease that is how I'm understanding the picture given to us through the prophets.
Can you be more specific about Hosea? I don't know much about that prophet. I want to understand his prophecies. I think I read somewhere in the bible (Kings or Chronicles) that the northern Israelites who weren't happy with wicked kings migrated to the south, Judah. So the tribes aren't lost. Only a part of the northern tribes were lost. If you look at Luke 2:


Luke 2
36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

This prophetess from the tribe of Asher was living in Jerusalem.
Peter, James and John and Andrew were from Galilee, which belonged to Zebulun and Naphtali (but I don't know from what tribe they originated from).

[Beck]

Can you be more specific about Hosea? I don't know much about that prophet. I want to understand his prophecies.
Loammi (lōăm`ī) [Heb.,=not my people], in the Bible, symbolic name of the prophet Hosea's second son and figurative name of Israel before reconciliation.


Hosea 1:9-11 9Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

10Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

11Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

Paul relates to Hosea in these passage he quotes from Romans 9:24-29. As stated before Paul's audience were Romans that were Israelites.


Romans 4:11What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

These Israelites that Paul was addressing where those he spoke of concerning the prophecy of Hosea 'People which were not my people'. Paul asked, Hath God cast them way? No God would graft them back into the fold / branch.


Romans 11:1-5 1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

There is much more in Ephesians 2:11-15, Hebrews 8:8, and of course Revelation 7:1-17. So that all of Israel might be saved. The book of Hosea and life of Hosea is a imagery of the dealings of God with Israel which has judgments and restoration. As seen that the ten tribes of Israel are carried away and then brought back through the preaching of the gospel by Paul.

Many symbolic imagery can be found in the OT and NT of this coming together of the house of Judah and the house of Israel. As given in above post one is the Two Sticks of Ezekiel .




I think I read somewhere in the bible (Kings or Chronicles) that the northern Israelites who weren't happy with wicked kings migrated to the south, Judah. So the tribes aren't lost. Only a part of the northern tribes were lost. If you look at Luke 2:

Yes, only a remnant will be saved. Romans 11:5

Beck

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Paul relates to Hosea in these passage he quotes from Romans 9:24-29. As stated before Paul's audience were Romans that were Israelites.

Romans 4:11What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
Hey there Beck,

You have covered a lot of territory. I will need to establish the basics before I can catch up with your argument.

It appears you are saying the word "ethnos" (usually translated as "Gentiles") actually refers to physical descendants of the lost tribes.

I see two fundamental problems with this suggestion:

1) There is no such thing as the "lost tribes." They have been fully absorbed into the Gentiles. I explained this in Post #4, and you have yet to reply. I would be very interested in your understanding of this argument.

2) The Gospel is supposed to go to the entire world - to both "Jews and Gentiles" - if you are correct, it goes only to Israel. The Gentiles are left out.

Also, I'm not sure that your argument about "audience identification" is correct. Paul declares that Abraham is the father of all believers, so Rom 4:1 does not identify only physical descendants.

So ... I'd like to pursue this topic, but I think we need to work on the foundation a bit. If there is no such thing as the "lost tribes" then we have a rather big problem.

All the best,

Richard

[gilgal]

Loammi (lōăm`ī) [Heb.,=not my people], in the Bible, symbolic name of the prophet Hosea's second son and figurative name of Israel before reconciliation.


Hosea 1:9-11 9Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.

10Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

11Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

This is the main focus in Hosea: Loammi.
Looking at Romans 9 I understand that Hosea is not simply referring the Northern tribes known as "Israel" but including Judah as well:


Romans 9
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

[joel]

Richard, a portion of what you said,

"If I recall correctly, you believe Christians in this age have a "heavenly calling" while literal physical Israel will have an "earthly calling" in the future. And you see a future sequence yet to be fulfilled:

1) We are in the church age.

2) The church age will end with the Rapture when God will "take up" all believers (Jew and Gentile) to be with him in heaven. This is because they have the "heavenly calling."
---------------------------------------------------


I want to address each part of query, but, would prefer not to make a hasty reply. I am thankful that you remain interested in the views of others, being a very positive characteristic of yours, and, specifically what I may hold as an appropriate view of the truth, even if it does not mesh with your views.

I am currently studying the concept of time......and find that the word "age" in the Greek (aion) is a robust word used in many sections of the NT writings.

I haven't found the expression "church age". So, I am reluctant to use that phrase because it may be another label that has been placed upon something which confuses when used rather than clarifies.

Phrases or expressions such as "spiritual death", "sin nature", "church age".....cannot be directly linked with specific word groupings in the verses.....but seem to be invented to attempt to describe something. It is preferred, so I believe, to identify sound expressions that are linked to specific scripture, and to use those expressions when discussing the meanings of those things described.

That having been said, I do not want to characterize this "age" as the "church age"..........for the reasons above stated......and.........an ecclesia is a called out assembly, used to describe multiple groups.......and if the most common useage, i. e., the called out assembly which are linked directly to the Lord Jesus, i.e. the Church, then, to say that there is a specifc age which is called "the Church age" is not a sound expression.

So.......what "age" are we in?......according to your understanding........is it the age following the 70 AD judgment?.....seeing that you believe that the generation of that age received the full and complete judgment of God upon the Jewish people and upon their holy city, Jerusalem......which must have been the end of an age.

I don't believe that the 70AD events marked the end of an age, and, the beginning of another.......but I am interested in your views as this "appears" to be what you believe......Oh Lion Hearted One.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I want to address each part of query, but, would prefer not to make a hasty reply. I am thankful that you remain interested in the views of others, being a very positive characteristic of yours, and, specifically what I may hold as an appropriate view of the truth, even if it does not mesh with your views.

I am currently studying the concept of time......and find that the word "age" in the Greek (aion) is a robust word used in many sections of the NT writings.

I haven't found the expression "church age". So, I am reluctant to use that phrase because it may be another label that has been placed upon something which confuses when used rather than clarifies.

Phrases or expressions such as "spiritual death", "sin nature", "church age".....cannot be directly linked with specific word groupings in the verses.....but seem to be invented to attempt to describe something. It is preferred, so I believe, to identify sound expressions that are linked to specific scripture, and to use those expressions when discussing the meanings of those things described.

That having been said, I do not want to characterize this "age" as the "church age"..........for the reasons above stated......and.........an ecclesia is a called out assembly, used to describe multiple groups.......and if the most common useage, i. e., the called out assembly which are linked directly to the Lord Jesus, i.e. the Church, then, to say that there is a specifc age which is called "the Church age" is not a sound expression.

So.......what "age" are we in?......according to your understanding........is it the age following the 70 AD judgment?.....seeing that you believe that the generation of that age received the full and complete judgment of God upon the Jewish people and upon their holy city, Jerusalem......which must have been the end of an age.

I don't believe that the 70AD events marked the end of an age, and, the beginning of another.......but I am interested in your views as this "appears" to be what you believe......Oh Lion Hearted One.

Joel
Hey there my mighty hermeneutical Marathon Man! :yo:

I agree that we should avoid loaded labels that contain implicit doctrines within themselves.

And I agree it is very good to walk slowly one point at a time.

So, in answer to your question: The Bible frequently speaks of the end(s) of an "age" or "ages" that occurred in the first century, in direct association with set of events properly labeled "The Coming of Christ." This set of events includes everything from John the Baptist to 70 AD. It is also called "the last days" in the Bible. Here is a brief overview:

1) Malachi declared John the Baptist would come before Christ and the judgment known as the Day of the Lord.

2) Hebrews declares that Christ came in the "last days" and that he was crucified in the "end of the ages."

3) Peter concurs (Acts 2), and declares the the first century events were the "last days" predicted by the Prophet Joel.

4) Paul said that the "ends of the ages" had "come upon" the first century generation.

And so on and so forth. You know all these things. I'm sure I've posted this information at least a couple dozen times on this forum.

So, the "end of the age" and the "last days" spanned the time from 30 - 70 AD. We are now living in the "Messianic Age." I would guess that the proper Biblical label would be "the age to come" relative to the preceding age which was known at that time as the "present age" and which denoted the time prior to the New Covenant when the Temple stood and the Testator had yet to die.

All the very best,

Richard

[Beck]

Hey there Beck,

You have covered a lot of territory. I will need to establish the basics before I can catch up with your argument.

It appears you are saying the word "ethnos" (usually translated as "Gentiles") actually refers to physical descendants of the lost tribes.

Hi Richard,

Yes, in a sence I'm advocating that when the word ethnos is translated it may not be a very good translation as Gentiles. That brings about the thought of people of the gender of an pagan nation. That isn't always the case, a case in point would be found in Acts 2 where Jew's from all around which came to Jerusalem for the festival's, but the word 'ethnos' here is translated in the KJ as Nation. "out of every nation under heaven."

These Jews would be called by where they came from as much as the disciples were called 'Galilaean's'. These Jews would be called Parthian's, Medeian's, and Mesopotamiain's, etc... All of which is from the pagan nations.

Therefore I consider the same for the tribes of Israel that have been carried away unto these pagan nations.



I see two fundamental problems with this suggestion:

1) There is no such thing as the "lost tribes." They have been fully absorbed into the Gentiles. I explained this in Post #4, and you have yet to reply. I would be very interested in your understanding of this argument.

Your're right, I did failed to response to you question concerning this argument. That was just my oversight, sorry. I totally agree that they were absorded in to the Gentile nations, but being absorded into a gentile race and culture would not erase those that remained as part of the remnant of Israel. (Romans 11:6)


Those that would come back to God through the preaching of the gospel from out of these nations. How else would Revelation 7 have the 12 tribes of Israel represented? John was asked who are these? It was those that came out of great tribulation. Now if we conclude this time of trouble to be 64-67AD then this would be after Paul's work of spreading the gospel to the 'enthos'.





2) The Gospel is supposed to go to the entire world - to both "Jews and Gentiles" - if you are correct, it goes only to Israel. The Gentiles are left out.

Correct to the Jews first and then the Gentiles. Now is this ethnos concerning the lost tribes or is it all gentiles 'uncircumized' not of the covenant promised?

One of the problems I have understanding comes from Isaiah 60:1-3 along with Revelation which speaks the same 19:24. Now what I have found is that 'ethnos' in these passages would best fit to be translated as 'mulitiudes of people' But then again that can be taken as the lost tribes that have been carried away into these pagan nations as described by John of the 144,000 Israelites. Which when he turns to see the number of them [144,000] he saw a great mulitiude of people, from every nation, kindreds, and people, tongues ....

Kindreds is an interesting one. One question can be asked is John saying his kinfolk as Israelites or brethren in Christ? I think John had areally make it concerning the 144,000 Jews.

What that leaves is that the foundation and walls and gates of the heavenly Jersualem is made up of all of Israel. Now would we as Gentiles be allowed to enter her gates?



Also, I'm not sure that your argument about "audience identification" is correct. Paul declares that Abraham is the father of all believers, so Rom 4:1 does not identify only physical descendants.
I'm not sure you can make that argument while Paul told them his audience that our father Abraham as pertaining to the flesh....So Paul here in Romans 4:1 is'nt declaring that Abraham through faith is the father of them all, but pertaining to flesh.

As else where in Romans 11:1 Paul is declaring that God will not cast away his people and Paul joined himself with them as a Israelite. It is in this context that he speaks of the remnant of Israel.

I have wondered why God choice Saul to go preach to the gentiles and not his disciples. One can see in Paul and his ability as a Israelite and being a Roman. He goes to his kinsmen as an Israelite and with the understanding of where they are in their relastionship to God as an gentile. Paul is a example to them that God can and will save and gather back the lost sheep.



So ... I'd like to pursue this topic, but I think we need to work on the foundation a bit. If there is no such thing as the "lost tribes" then we have a rather big problem.

All the best,

Richard

We may start by addressing the lost tribes or out cast of Israel concerning Isaiah 11:11-16

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Yes, in a sence I'm advocating that when the word ethnos is translated it may not be a very good translation as Gentiles. That brings about the thought of people of the gender of an pagan nation. That isn't always the case, a case in point would be found in Acts 2 where Jew's from all around which came to Jerusalem for the festival's, but the word 'ethnos' here is translated in the KJ as Nation. "out of every nation under heaven."

These Jews would be called by where they came from as much as the disciples were called 'Galilaean's'. These Jews would be called Parthian's, Medeian's, and Mesopotamiain's, etc... All of which is from the pagan nations.

Therefore I consider the same for the tribes of Israel that have been carried away unto these pagan nations.

I agree that the word "Gentiles" is not always a good translation of "ethnos." Indeed, this nation of Israel is itself described as "goy" in Hebrew, and "ethnos" in Greek:
Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation (goy/ethnos). These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
As with any word, it is the context that determines the precise meaning.



Your're right, I did failed to response to you question concerning this argument. That was just my oversight, sorry. I totally agree that they were absorded in to the Gentile nations, but being absorded into a gentile race and culture would not erase those that remained as part of the remnant of Israel. (Romans 11:6)

I don't think you understood the argument. Being "absorbed" is identical to being "erased." There are no "hidden Israelites" - they are genetically identical to Gentiles. Do you understand this point? It's like a drop of ink in the ocean. It gets distributed throughout, so that any drop of water (Gentiles) contains an equal measure of the ink (Israelites). So even God himself could not select a drop that was "pure ink" (Israelite) because there are no such drops to select. This is a fundamental point that must be understood (or refuted).

Just think about it for a minute. Suppose there was a "pure" Israelite hidden out there in the Gentile world somewhere but did not know it. Who did he marry? Some Gentle, because he did not know he was Israelite. So his kids are half Gentile. And their kids are 75% Gentile. And their kids are 87.5% Gentile. And that's only after three generations! After a mere 20 generations, they would be 99.99999% Gentile! That's total absorption. Complete erasure.



Those that would come back to God through the preaching of the gospel from out of these nations. How else would Revelation 7 have the 12 tribes of Israel represented? John was asked who are these? It was those that came out of great tribulation. Now if we conclude this time of trouble to be 64-67AD then this would be after Paul's work of spreading the gospel to the 'enthos'.

The list of 12 tribes in Revelation is symbolic. It represents "all Israel." The double emphasis on the number 12 (12 x 12,000) makes that pretty clear. Especially since Revelation is a highly symbolic book, and the same symbolism is found in the description of the New Jerusalem.

But though the number is symbolic, it was fulfilled quite literally when thousands of first century Jews (including members from all 12 tribes) were sealed with the very "Seal of God" - that is, Sealed with the Holy Spirit.

But the fact that the 144,000 were literal Israel, does not connect with Paul's preaching to the Gentiles as far as I can see.




2) The Gospel is supposed to go to the entire world - to both "Jews and Gentiles" - if you are correct, it goes only to Israel. The Gentiles are left out.
Correct to the Jews first and then the Gentiles. Now is this ethnos concerning the lost tribes or is it all gentiles 'uncircumized' not of the covenant promised?

The "ethnos" just refers to all the nations not under the Mosaic covenant.



One of the problems I have understanding comes from Isaiah 60:1-3 along with Revelation which speaks the same 19:24. Now what I have found is that 'ethnos' in these passages would best fit to be translated as 'mulitiudes of people' But then again that can be taken as the lost tribes that have been carried away into these pagan nations as described by John of the 144,000 Israelites. Which when he turns to see the number of them [144,000] he saw a great mulitiude of people, from every nation, kindreds, and people, tongues ....

Kindreds is an interesting one. One question can be asked is John saying his kinfolk as Israelites or brethren in Christ? I think John had areally make it concerning the 144,000 Jews.

I don't see any reason to be thinking of the 10 tribes as a separate group from the Jews that lived in Palestine and other "Jewish" communities. They may have remembered their tribal affiliation, or they may have forgotten. We'll never know. But we do know that for the most part, Jews were just "the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" without any tribal identity. The term "Jew" had shifted from referring specifically to members of Judah to any Israelite.



What that leaves is that the foundation and walls and gates of the heavenly Jersualem is made up of all of Israel. Now would we as Gentiles be allowed to enter her gates?

I think you are being too literal. The "all Israel" is symbolized by the number 12. Now I do believe it is likely that the two kingdoms were united (two sticks) at Pentecost when "Jews" from all nations gathered. But I don't think the "lost tribes" were called "ethnos."




Also, I'm not sure that your argument about "audience identification" is correct. Paul declares that Abraham is the father of all believers, so Rom 4:1 does not identify only physical descendants. I'm not sure you can make that argument while Paul told them his audience that our father Abraham as pertaining to the flesh....So Paul here in Romans 4:1 is'nt declaring that Abraham through faith is the father of them all, but pertaining to flesh.

I anticipated that approach. There are two ways of parsing that sentence:
NAS Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

YLT Romans 4:1 What, then, shall we say Abraham our father, to have found, according to flesh?
What is being modified by "according to the flesh?" Is it Abraham, or "what Abraham found"? I think the answer is pretty clear. Why would Paul be talking about Abraham being "our father according to the flesh" in this verse, and then immediately speak of Abraham as the "father of all" who have faith?
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
So I conclude that the correct understanding is this: Paul was asking what "fleshly thing" Abraham had accomplished through works:
Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
See that? It seems so plain and simple. Paul was contrasting faith and works with being a spiritual or fleshly child of Abraham.

I see nothing that would make me think he was talking to crypto-Israelites hidden amongst the Gentiles.




As else where in Romans 11:1 Paul is declaring that God will not cast away his people and Paul joined himself with them as a Israelite. It is in this context that he speaks of the remnant of Israel.

Yes, and he - of the Tribe of Benjamin, of the southern Kingdom of Judah, was amongst the "remnant" of Israel. He was not talking about tribal affiliations. There is nothing in his writings that have ever made me think that. He is talking about Jews/Israel vs. Gentiles.



I have wondered why God choice Saul to go preach to the gentiles and not his disciples. One can see in Paul and his ability as a Israelite and being a Roman. He goes to his kinsmen as an Israelite and with the understanding of where they are in their relastionship to God as an gentile. Paul is a example to them that God can and will save and gather back the lost sheep.

If that were the case, why didn't Paul ever speak of the Ten Tribes?

This is a very strange theory to me. I've been studying Scripture for two decades and have not encountered this idea in either commentaries or my own understanding of what is written. So if it is correct, you will need to find a much more "solid foundation" of some explicit passage that speaks of the "lost tribes."





So ... I'd like to pursue this topic, but I think we need to work on the foundation a bit. If there is no such thing as the "lost tribes" then we have a rather big problem.

All the best,

Richard We may start by addressing the lost tribes or out cast of Israel concerning Isaiah 11:11-16

I believe that Isaiah 11:11-16 was a prophecy of Pentecost when the "Jews" - meaning any and all surviving self-identified descendants of the 12 Tribes - came to Jerusalem, and 3000 were sealed with the Seal of God - the Holy Spirit - and the "Two Sticks" (Ezek 37, which also is a prophecy of Pentecost) were united in the New Covenant (Heb 8:8, Jer 31:31). The list of nations in Isaiah 11 is essentially identical to the list in Acts 2. I wrote about this in detail some time ago.

I don't think it has anything to do with the general use of "Gentile" the NT.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Beck,

Here is the post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=23534#post23534) that I recently wrote concerning the fulfillment of Isaiah 11:11-16 and Rev 7:




Rose said:

"Today most Jews don't have a clue which tribe they are from because all records were lost in the destruction of Jerusalem never to be found again"

But the Lord does and the scriptures confirm it

His future dealings with the nation will carry on with the same

[Isaiah 11:11-16; Ezekiel 40; 48; Revelation 7:1-7]
I'm glad you mentioned Isaiah 11 and Rev 7. Both are prophecies of Pentecost as recorded in the passage from Acts that Rose cited.

Everyone knows that the first part of Isa 11 refers to the coming of Christ in the first century, so we all agree it has been fulfilled.

The same conclusion applies to the second part of Isa 11 which was fulfilled at Pentecost. The same regions prophesied in Isa 11 are mentioned in its fulfillment in Acts. Here is the explanation I gave in another post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17340&postcount=2) where I began with the passage that Rose had quoted (and which prompted you to cite Isaiah 11):
The very specific list of the twelve tribes sealed in Revelation 7 recalls the very specific list of nations from which the Jews came to the Feast of Pentecost:
Acts 2:5-12 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
This passage from Acts lists sixteen nations, three of which Peter named when he addressed his first epistle to the "strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." Likewise, James addressed his epistle to the "twelve tribes which are scattered abroad." This parallel with the very specific list of names of the twelve tribes suggests that God gathered the remnant of the ten "lost" tribes of the house of Israel and joined them to the house of Judah in Messiah Jesus at Pentecost, and thereby fulfilled all the prophecies that predicted their future reunion. Thus, the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31 = Hebrews 8:8 speaks of the two houses reunited as one people in one covenant which is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, and this links to the prophecy of Isaiah 11 which reveals that the Gentiles too will be included:
Isaiah 11:9-12 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse [Jesus Christ], which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. 11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
The "first time" God regathered His people was after the Babylonian exile. The "second time" was at Pentecost. We know Isaiah 11 is speaking of the Gospel because it speaks of the "root of Jesse [Jesus Christ] and the inclusion of the Gentiles. It is particularly intriguing that there is an overlap in the nations listed in Acts 2 and Isaiah 11. They are the only two passages in the entire Bible that mention both Egypt and Elam, and the other names are variations describing the four quarters surrounding Jerusalem. John Sawyer noted that "One can also recognize in the list references to the 'four corners of the earth' (v. 12): Hamath - North, Egypt - South, Elam and Shinar - East, 'the coastlands of the sea' - West." (Volume 1. The Daily study Bible series, pg. 125).
Note the reference to the four corners of the earth signifies the LAND OF ISRAEL and surrounding countries. This confirms again that the modern literalists are wrong when they say it refers to the entire globe of planet earth.

So there you go TF. A veritable MOUNTAIN of mutually confirming verses that establish the Preterist understanding.

All the very best,

Richard

[Beck]

I agree that the word "Gentiles" is not always a good translation of "ethnos." Indeed, this nation of Israel is itself described as "goy" in Hebrew, and "ethnos" in Greek:
Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: 6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation (goy/ethnos). These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
As with any word, it is the context that determines the precise meaning.
That's good that we agree on that point, and I would also agree that context is the key to determining how it should be used and translated.



I don't think you understood the argument. Being "absorbed" is identical to being "erased." There are no "hidden Israelites" - they are genetically identical to Gentiles. Do you understand this point?
Maybe I did understand 'absorded' in a different way.



It's like a drop of ink in the ocean. It gets distributed throughout, so that any drop of water (Gentiles) contains an equal measure of the ink (Israelites). So even God himself could not select a drop that was "pure ink" (Israelite) because there are no such drops to select. This is a fundamental point that must be understood (or refuted).

In your anaolgy I don't necessary see that as being absorded. That would be more like diluting. Absorption to me if using a anaolgy would be more like a sponge absording water. The water hasn't turned into the sponge nor has the sponge turned into the water. It would be like an incorporation.

The point I was trying to make is that Paul said, that even that day that there still remained a remnant of Israel. How can that be if we define total absorption?




Just think about it for a minute. Suppose there was a "pure" Israelite hidden out there in the Gentile world somewhere but did not know it. Who did he marry? Some Gentle, because he did not know he was Israelite. So his kids are half Gentile. And their kids are 75% Gentile. And their kids are 87.5% Gentile. And that's only after three generations! After a mere 20 generations, they would be 99.99999% Gentile! That's total absorption. Complete erasure.
You mean they forget that they where Israelites? That's like Paul saying to the Gentiles that in times past they where Gentiles!!//??? Are should we understand that Paul in Ephesians where addressing Israelites that where uncircumcised in the flesh.?


Ephesians 2:11-12
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Isn't that the covenant with Abraham?


Genesis 17:1414And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

So since Paul declared that an remnant remain still, I would have to take his word on it. In which fulfills Isaiah 10:22


Romans 9:26
27Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:



The list of 12 tribes in Revelation is symbolic. It represents "all Israel." The double emphasis on the number 12 (12 x 12,000) makes that pretty clear. Especially since Revelation is a highly symbolic book, and the same symbolism is found in the description of the New Jerusalem.

But though the number is symbolic, it was fulfilled quite literally when thousands of first century Jews (including members from all 12 tribes) were sealed with the very "Seal of God" - that is, Sealed with the Holy Spirit.

But the fact that the 144,000 were literal Israel, does not connect with Paul's preaching to the Gentiles as far as I can see.

That is the question then isn't it? So when John heard that number (Rev.7:4) He then beheld [looked] and saw a great multitude, which no one could number, of all nations [ethnos], and kindreds, tongues...(Rev.7:9).

I give that of Acts 2:5-11 to show that those Jews from the nations listed where called by that nation and spoke the language [tongue]. This seem to be how John is describing that great number as the 144,000 Jews which he beheld.



The "ethnos" just refers to all the nations not under the Mosaic covenant.
True, but that's not always the context. The context that Paul was quoting from OT was Judah and Israel and them under the Mosaic covenant or those not under from among the children of Israel.



I don't see any reason to be thinking of the 10 tribes as a separate group from the Jews that lived in Palestine and other "Jewish" communities. They may have remembered their tribal affiliation, or they may have forgotten. We'll never know. But we do know that for the most part, Jews were just "the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" without any tribal identity. The term "Jew" had shifted from referring specifically to members of Judah to any Israelite.
Yes, after the return from Babylon the tribes where no longer other than the Levites. Then all where called Jews. Although Paul said he was a Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin, which was once among the northren tribes of Israel.



I think you are being too literal. The "all Israel" is symbolized by the number 12. Now I do believe it is likely that the two kingdoms were united (two sticks) at Pentecost when "Jews" from all nations gathered. But I don't think the "lost tribes" were called "ethnos."

I'm not so sure about been to literal, When Paul used 'all of Israel' to be saved. He was refering to Jews and Gentiles coming together to make one 'all Israel'. Symbolically the 12 tribes of Israel. I don't think that there would have to be a representation from the 10 tribes. People that come out of all 10, but only a gathering together of the children from Israel. The remnant of Israel.

Israel the 10 tribes where carried away to the four corners of the world, which would make them gentiles by name. Scripture claimed that a remnant from the children of Israel which is as the sand of the sea shall be saved.

Would you say that only a remnant of Gentiles be saved?




I anticipated that approach. There are two ways of parsing that sentence:
NAS Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

YLT Romans 4:1 What, then, shall we say Abraham our father, to have found, according to flesh?
What is being modified by "according to the flesh?" Is it Abraham, or "what Abraham found"? I think the answer is pretty clear. Why would Paul be talking about Abraham being "our father according to the flesh" in this verse, and then immediately speak of Abraham as the "father of all" who have faith?
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
So I conclude that the correct understanding is this: Paul was asking what "fleshly thing" Abraham had accomplished through works:
Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
See that? It seems so plain and simple. Paul was contrasting faith and works with being a spiritual or fleshly child of Abraham.

I see nothing that would make me think he was talking to crypto-Israelites hidden amongst the Gentiles.

Paul is simply contrasting the law and faith, but Paul also where addressing all of the seed of Abraham. Not only those that follows the law of God, but that "I have made thee a father of many nations'[multitudes] as the children of Israel is to be as the sand of the sea.




Yes, and he - of the Tribe of Benjamin, of the southern Kingdom of Judah, was amongst the "remnant" of Israel. He was not talking about tribal affiliations. There is nothing in his writings that have ever made me think that. He is talking about Jews/Israel vs. Gentiles. If that's the case than why mention from what tribe? Who would care?



If that were the case, why didn't Paul ever speak of the Ten Tribes?
I think he was sent to them and that is why they were called gentiles.



This is a very strange theory to me. I've been studying Scripture for two decades and have not encountered this idea in either commentaries or my own understanding of what is written. So if it is correct, you will need to find a much more "solid foundation" of some explicit passage that speaks of the "lost tribes."
Well, I'll like to fine that solid foundation, but I don't think there is one or else someone would have already come to this understanding. I was just thinking out loud here, but I have often wondered why Saul's name was changed to Paul while nor of the other apostles changed their names. Was it to make it more appealing or easier for the non believing gentile? Paul claimed that while in Rome do as the Roman's. :confused:



I believe that Isaiah 11:11-16 was a prophecy of Pentecost when the "Jews" - meaning any and all surviving self-identified descendants of the 12 Tribes - came to Jerusalem, and 3000 were sealed with the Seal of God - the Holy Spirit - and the "Two Sticks" (Ezek 37, which also is a prophecy of Pentecost) were united in the New Covenant (Heb 8:8, Jer 31:31). The list of nations in Isaiah 11 is essentially identical to the list in Acts 2. I wrote about this in detail some time ago.

I don't think it has anything to do with the general use of "Gentile" the NT.

All the best,

Richard

It would seem that is the case, but lets not limit it to penetcost. Those sealed would continue unto the end, The mission of Paul was to go to the gentile nations and preach the gospel so that all of Israel would be saved.

It isn't until these remnant's are saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit that God's wrath be poured out on that wicked generation. I would believe that happen in 66-70AD.

Those in Ephesians claimed to have been sealed by the Spirit of promise as those first to trust in Christ. This ties in with those Gentiles [ethnos] :eek:

[Beck]

Hey Beck,

Here is the post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=23534#post23534) that I recently wrote concerning the fulfillment of Isaiah 11:11-16 and Rev 7:

Richard,

I simply don't have any disagreements here, but I hold that until the fulness of the remnant come in that would be much later.


Shall we then look for God to return to Israel after the fulness of the Gentiles?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

I simply don't have any disagreements here, but I hold that until the fulness of the remnant come in that would be much later.


Shall we then look for God to return to Israel after the fulness of the Gentiles?
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "remnant of Israel." I don't think it has anything to do with the "ten tribes" per se, but rather refers to the remnant of Jews (i.e. anyone under the first covenant) who would believe the Gospel in the first century.

Is there a reason I should abandon this interpretation?

[Beck]

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "remnant of Israel." I don't think it has anything to do with the "ten tribes" per se, but rather refers to the remnant of Jews (i.e. anyone under the first covenant) who would believe the Gospel in the first century.

I was about to ask that same question. Who would be the out cast of Israel? In so much that God would gather together the remnant back to the land. [figurative speaking] The way the OT has it the remnant would be those gathered from the nations. Can that be said of all the Jews?



Is there a reason I should abandon this interpretation?

If you would could you first address some of my question? Thanks.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was about to ask that same question. Who would be the out cast of Israel? In so much that God would gather together the remnant back to the land. [figurative speaking] The way the OT has it the remnant would be those gathered from the nations. Can that be said of all the Jews?

Let's take a look:

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
The "second time" seems to be referring to Pentecost when God began gathering the faithful remnant of Israel and Judah together as one in Christ.

I have no reason to doubt that these "outcasts of Israel" and "scattered of Judah" speaks of those who knew their identity as descendants of Abraham under the first covenant. They are referred to as "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5).

I really don't see anything that would make me think God was somehow gathering folks who identified as non-Israelite Gentiles with no knowledge of Judaism or the first covenant. Are you suggesting that those God gathered looked like, and believed they were, Gentiles?

[gilgal]

Let's take a look:

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
The "second time" seems to be referring to Pentecost when God began gathering the faithful remnant of Israel and Judah together as one in Christ.

I have no reason to doubt that these "outcasts of Israel" and "scattered of Judah" speaks of those who knew their identity as descendants of Abraham under the first covenant. They are referred to as "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5).

I really don't see anything that would make me think God was somehow gathering folks who identified as non-Israelite Gentiles with no knowledge of Judaism or the first covenant. Are you suggesting that those God gathered looked like, and believed they were, Gentiles?

Ok so what was the first gathering? From the Babylonian captivity? Then the first was a call back to the land but the second gathering is to introduce the new covenant. But I think that the Isaiah passage was quoted in Acts right?

[gilgal]

Let's take a look:

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
The "second time" seems to be referring to Pentecost when God began gathering the faithful remnant of Israel and Judah together as one in Christ.

I have no reason to doubt that these "outcasts of Israel" and "scattered of Judah" speaks of those who knew their identity as descendants of Abraham under the first covenant. They are referred to as "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5).

I really don't see anything that would make me think God was somehow gathering folks who identified as non-Israelite Gentiles with no knowledge of Judaism or the first covenant. Are you suggesting that those God gathered looked like, and believed they were, Gentiles?
Shinar rings a bell: Genesis 11 and Isaiah 11.



Isaiah 11
1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;
3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:
4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
13 The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off: Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim.

This may still mean the Millennial Reign. Verse 6 says that the wolf will lie with the lamb. But the Jews did receive the first call.


14 But they shall fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines toward the west; they shall spoil them of the east together: they shall lay their hand upon Edom and Moab; and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
15 And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod.
16 And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt.



Acts 15
1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31 Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
32 And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
33 And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
34 Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
35 Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the LORD, and see how they do.
37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
41 And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.

[gilgal]

More on Shinar of Genesis 11 and Isaiah 11 and branch/roots in Isaiah 11 and Daniel 11:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=28772#post28772

[Beck]

Let's take a look:

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. 12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.
The "second time" seems to be referring to Pentecost when God began gathering the faithful remnant of Israel and Judah together as one in Christ.

The way it reads is if a battle cry is given to gather for battle. To set up an ensign [pole, flag, banner] and blow the trumpet. The ensign is from the root of Jessie and flag to announce the Messiah and to assemble the outcast of Israel, and Judah from the four corners. To me this simply indicates that of the gospel going to the four corners and that of the end. (Matthew 24:30-31)

Although at Penetcost it would be foresure a starting place to fulfill this prophecy. As I mentioned before I don't accept that all of the remnant where gathered into the fold that day nor the days after, but until the very end.

That is why Paul said that there were still that day an remnant of Israel. That would be around the year 57AD much later that those that came to Jerusalem in 30AD. It is these that Paul quotes Hosea and Isaiah in that these that where not called my people, shall be my people. All reference is of the children of Israel "the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea" It is these that are called not my people.(Hosea 1:10-11)

Now the question becomes where those at penetcost the only Remnant of Israel saved? No, right?
It then would be my logic to says that while the ingathering started on penetcost it continued unto the message went unto the world so that as many as would came to Christ until the fulness of the Geniles come in. So that all Israel be saved.

While in Romans 9:2-3 Paul address the audience as his brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Who are Israelites;
Paul was addressing and it seems to be in all of his epistles those of his blood brothers - people of his own race. This being so he was not addressing other nations as such, but his fellow countrymen, who were living in other countries. Which clearly show to whom he was writing when he used ethnos, 'a nation'. These would be given the gospel message also just like Judah [Jerusalem] those afar off would be gather for the house of Israel. To make one new man, Two Sticks become One.






I have no reason to doubt that these "outcasts of Israel" and "scattered of Judah" speaks of those who knew their identity as descendants of Abraham under the first covenant. They are referred to as "Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5).

Acts 2:5 would be the beginning of the ingathering not it's completion. There were other Jews which believed the gospel and were sealed by the Spirit of promise much later, Would you agree?



I really don't see anything that would make me think God was somehow gathering folks who identified as non-Israelite Gentiles with no knowledge of Judaism or the first covenant.

That isn't what I'm implying concering the word 'ethnos' but Israelites living in pagan lands. Living as gentiles according to their flesh.[uncircumcised]



Are you suggesting that those God gathered looked like, and believed they were, Gentiles? In so much that the circumcised called them the uncircumcised, nation, ethnos.

When these lost tribes of Israel began to come to Christ through the gospel some questioned [Pharisees] that they as Israelites needed to be circumcised. Acts 15.

[Beck]

So Richard, If I understand your position on the 'out cast of Israel' and 'remnant of Israel' being gathered would be fulfilled at penetcost according to Acts 2:5.

How then is your understanding concerning Romans 11:25? Do you accept that the audience to whom Paul is addressing Gentiles and that Paul says that there is still a remnant of Israel that present day.

So 'Israel' which has 'blindness' in parts, [because there is a remnant that is faithful.] They remain blinded until the fulness of the Gentiles come into the fold. That indicates that one day God will open there eyes that they could come in so to have all Israel saved. Is that how you view this? If so when do you see that being fulfilled? Or could you explan how you interpret "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in"

Thanks

[Beck]

To continue our discussion I would first like to ask some questions.


Matthew 10:5-6These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus commanded his disciples to go NOT unto the way of the 'gentiles', but rather to the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus spoke of himself that he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel.


Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.


Why is it then Jesus would command them to go to all the nations?


Matthew 28:19-20
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen

Where is his 12 disciples recorded of having gone to the nations 'Gentiles' and preach and teach the word of God? Maybe some one can fine scripture, but in Acts it seems more of Paul that the disciples.

If these are pagan Gentiles why do we fine that Peter had to have a vision to understand that the gospel was to be given to the Gentiles when Jesus commanded them to go to them?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

To continue our discussion I would first like to ask some questions.
Matthew 10:5-6These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jesus commanded his disciples to go NOT unto the way of the 'gentiles', but rather to the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus spoke of himself that he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel.
Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Why is it then Jesus would command them to go to all the nations?
Matthew 28:19-20
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. AmenWhere is his 12 disciples recorded of having gone to the nations 'Gentiles' and preach and teach the word of God? Maybe some one can fine scripture, but in Acts it seems more of Paul that the disciples.

If these are pagan Gentiles why do we fine that Peter had to have a vision to understand that the gospel was to be given to the Gentiles when Jesus commanded them to go to them?
Christ's command to "go to the nations" seems quite anachronistic in light of the fact that there was not mention of anyone obeying his command until God gave Peter a direct revelation concerning the Gentiles in Acts 10 (Cornelius, etc.).

Now I know you had suggested that Cornelius may have been a "crypto-Israelite" but that is pure speculation and so should not be used in the foundation of this interpretation. We are searching the Scriptures to see if there is any actual evidence that the Gentiles were "crypto-Israelites" so we want to be careful never to simply introduce that idea as an assumption. For example, why didn't Christ say "Go to all the lost children of Israel scattered amongst the nations" in Matthew 28:19 if that's what he really meant?

ETA: I just noticed an apparent inconsistency. If "Gentiles = Lost Tribes of Israel" then Christ's statement that he was not sent to the Gentiles but only to Israel would not make any sense.

[Beck]

Christ's command to "go to the nations" seems quite anachronistic in light of the fact that there was not mention of anyone obeying his command until God gave Peter a direct revelation concerning the Gentiles in Acts 10 (Cornelius, etc.). If the purpose is to go the the Jews first and then the Gentiles. Had the 12 gones to the Jews[Judah] and now at the end at Jesus ascension is commanded to go to the Gentiles, nations which is among the pagans.

Now we gain from the old testament that both houses Judah and Israel is to become one again.[Eze. 37:15-28] Is this how Jesus would bring back the lost children of Israel/Ephraim by given a commandment to his disciples to go teach and baptize the nations? In given this commandment did they go and understand to go to the pagan nations and teach the non-circumcision people? I rather fine them remaining in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit which did fall as fire upon them and the nations of Jews which questioned that they were drunk by wine. Peter preaches to them and some was taken into the church which they seem to remained at Jerusalem for they continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking of bread.(Acts 2:41-47).

Peter had a statement concerning them [Jews from every nation].


Acts 2:39[I]For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call

Here is Peter saying that all Gentiles as many as the Lord God would call is the promise given to? If so why does it take a vision of revelation that the Gentiles is clean before the Lord some three years later?

So those that are 'afar off' would be the lost children of Israel of which Jesus commanded to go teach and baptize, right?



Now I know you had suggested that Cornelius may have been a "crypto-Israelite" but that is pure speculation and so should not be used in the foundation of this interpretation. We are searching the Scriptures to see if there is any actual evidence that the Gentiles were "crypto-Israelites" so we want to be careful never to simply introduce that idea as an assumption.Correct that was an assumption. We'll consider that at a later date after we have exam the evidence.



For example, why didn't Christ say "Go to all the lost children of Israel scattered amongst the nations" in Matthew 28:19 if that's what he really meant?
That would make it easier wouldn't it? But it would seem that's what his disciples especially Peter understood him to mean according to what Peter said in Acts 2:39. And the lack of evidence of the 12 goning to pagan nations and teaching and baptizing pagans.



ETA: I just noticed an apparent inconsistency. If "Gentiles = Lost Tribes of Israel" then Christ's statement that he was not sent to the Gentiles but only to Israel would not make any sense.

In that context of the woman of Canaan which came out of the same coast of Tyre and Sidon. Which is pretty far north from Jerusalem. Or you saying she would be a pagan Gentile or a crypto-Israelites? First why mention the details that she had came form the coast of these parts and that she was a Canaanite?

Refering to her as a dog would be the same as those that called the Samaritans dogs which the Samaritans consider themselves Bnei Yisrael ("Children of Israel" or "Israelites"), Jesus would later ask a Samaritian for water and she returns home. Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony.

So why the inconsistency? Jesus is only saying not at this time?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If the purpose is to go the the Jews first and then the Gentiles. Had the 12 gones to the Jews[Judah] and now at the end at Jesus ascension is commanded to go to the Gentiles, nations which is among the pagans.

I think it is a fundamental mistake to restrict all references to Jews in the NT as members of the southern tribe of "Judah." I agree with the scholastic consensus that by the first century, the term "Jew" had come to be synonymous with "Israelite." I very much doubt that you could find a single instance of a non-Jewish person identified as an "Israelite" or any "Israelite" identified as "not a Jew."



Now we gain from the old testament that both houses Judah and Israel is to become one again.[Eze. 37:15-28] Is this how Jesus would bring back the lost children of Israel/Ephraim by given a commandment to his disciples to go teach and baptize the nations? In given this commandment did they go and understand to go to the pagan nations and teach the non-circumcision people? I rather fine them remaining in Jerusalem for the promise of the Holy Spirit which did fall as fire upon them and the nations of Jews which questioned that they were drunk by wine. Peter preaches to them and some was taken into the church which they seem to remained at Jerusalem for they continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking of bread.(Acts 2:41-47).

How could his disciples obey his command if the "lost tribes" were no longer looking like Jews? That's the problem with the "crypto" part of your theory. There would be no way for anyone to obey the command if they could not distinguish between "real" uncircumcised Gentiles and uncircumcised "crypto-Israelites." I simply cannot make sense of this suggestion. It seems like you are vacillating between Israelites who could be easily identified and those who looked like Gentiles.



Peter had a statement concerning them [Jews from every nation].
Acts 2:39[I]For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall callHere is Peter saying that all Gentiles as many as the Lord God would call is the promise given to? If so why does it take a vision of revelation that the Gentiles is clean before the Lord some three years later?

The answer seems obvious. Peter was talking about JEWS from every nation, not "crypto-Israelites." That's why he needed a separate revelation to understand that the Gospel was also supposed to go to the genuine Gentiles (not meaning "crypto-Israelites).


So those that are 'afar off' would be the lost children of Israel of which Jesus commanded to go teach and baptize, right?

No, I don't see it that way at all. Those "afar off" simply refers to those Jews living a long ways away. Is there anything that would indicate "those afar off" refers to "crypto-Israelites" who do not even know they are Israelites?



That would make it easier wouldn't it? But it would seem that's what his disciples especially Peter understood him to mean according to what Peter said in Acts 2:39. And the lack of evidence of the 12 goning to pagan nations and teaching and baptizing pagans.

This seems like a contradiction. If they understood that Christ was talking about "lost Israelites" who look like Gentiles, then why did they not rush out to preach to the Gentiles? I think the main problem with this theory is that there is nowhere in the NT where anyone clearly identified the Gentiles as "lost Israelites."



So why the inconsistency? Jesus is only saying not at this time?
The inconsistency was that Jesus was distinguishing between Gentile and Israelite while you are saying that the Gentiles are Israelites. I guess we'll have to be more careful with our words. I am now getting the impression that you think the word "Gentile" has two meanings in the NT:


Sometimes the word "Gentile" denotes the lost tribes of Israel.
Sometimes the word "Gentile" denotes the actual Gentiles (folks not physically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and never bound by the Mosaic covenant).

I think it would be very helpful if you spelled out clearly exactly what you think the term "Gentile" means.

Great chatting.

[Beck]

How could his disciples obey his command if the "lost tribes" were no longer looking like Jews? That's the problem with the "crypto" part of your theory. There would be no way for anyone to obey the command if they could not distinguish between "real" uncircumcised Gentiles and uncircumcised "crypto-Israelites." I simply cannot make sense of this suggestion. It seems like you are vacillating between Israelites who could be easily identified and those who looked like Gentiles.

Lets take the Jews at penetcost they where identifed as Jews that where from every nation under heaven. If these are the fuflillment of Isaiah and Hoesa as the remnant of the children of Israel. How is it that they can be idenified? These were said to be devout men, God fearing men. Indicating that some Jews in other nations was not and didn't follow the laws of God. Those that are called the out cast of Israel by being uncircumciszed.



The answer seems obvious. Peter was talking about JEWS from every nation, not "crypto-Israelites." That's why he needed a separate revelation to understand that the Gospel was also supposed to go to the genuine Gentiles (not meaning "crypto-Israelites).

But how does that related back to the great commission? Does that word 'nations' only mean those Jews in all of the other nations? Where the word 'nations' would have been translated 'Gentiles' in so many other places.



This seems like a contradiction. If they understood that Christ was talking about "lost Israelites" who look like Gentiles, then why did they not rush out to preach to the Gentiles? I think the main problem with this theory is that there is nowhere in the NT where anyone clearly identified the Gentiles as "lost Israelites."

How then does James address his letter to the 12 tribes of Israel which has been scattered aboard? If the tribes are absorbed into the Gentiles whom is he writting too?



The inconsistency was that Jesus was distinguishing between Gentile and Israelite while you are saying that the Gentiles are Israelites. I guess we'll have to be more careful with our words. I am now getting the impression that you think the word "Gentile" has two meanings in the NT:


Sometimes the word "Gentile" denotes the lost tribes of Israel.
Sometimes the word "Gentile" denotes the actual Gentiles (folks not physically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and never bound by the Mosaic covenant).

I think it would be very helpful if you spelled out clearly exactly what you think the term "Gentile" means.

Great chatting.

There lays the problem, where the word 'ethnos' is used and translated in some context it mean simply multitudes, and others nations. One has to fine out what the context is to determine what translation to use. Since the nation of Israel is to be as the sand of the sea [nations]. It seems odd to have James addressing the lost tribes of Israel all 12 of them which have been scattered among the nations.

I guess it would be good for us to pick a passage a work to understand it's usage of 'nations' and then move on to another to build some type of understanding. You agree?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Lets take the Jews at penetcost they where identifed as Jews that where from every nation under heaven. If these are the fuflillment of Isaiah and Hoesa as the remnant of the children of Israel. How is it that they can be idenified? These were said to be devout men, God fearing men. Indicating that some Jews in other nations was not and didn't follow the laws of God. Those that are called the out cast of Israel by being uncircumciszed.

The Jews who were not following God's law still knew they were Jews, just like secular Jews today. If they had been truly absorbed into the Gentiles, then they wouldn't know they were Jews, and so no one could find them and preach to them.



But how does that related back to the great commission? Does that word 'nations' only mean those Jews in all of the other nations? Where the word 'nations' would have been translated 'Gentiles' in so many other places.

Like I said, the Great Commission appears to be anachronistic because it precedes the revelation given to Peter in Acts 10. It certainly does not sound like he is saying "Go ye therefore, and teach all Isrealites amongst the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." It sounds like he is saying the same thing he preached in the Olivet Discourse:

Matthew 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.
And this is the same thing Paul preached. It was "to the Jew first, and the the Gentiles." Not "to the tribe of Judah first, and then to the lost ten tribes of Israel."



How then does James address his letter to the 12 tribes of Israel which has been scattered aboard? If the tribes are absorbed into the Gentiles whom is he writting too?

James and Peter spoke of the "12 tribes" as a metonymy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy) for the "people of God." They weren't thinking in strictly literal terms. They wouldn't think to check the ID of their audience. Just like the New Jerusalem had the names of the 12 tribes and the 12 apostles to symbolize the people of God.



There lays the problem, where the word 'ethnos' is used and translated in some context it mean simply multitudes, and others nations. One has to fine out what the context is to determine what translation to use. Since the nation of Israel is to be as the sand of the sea [nations]. It seems odd to have James addressing the lost tribes of Israel all 12 of them which have been scattered among the nations.

I guess it would be good for us to pick a passage a work to understand it's usage of 'nations' and then move on to another to build some type of understanding. You agree?
I agree that context is extremely important to determine the precise group indicated by "ethnos" and/or "goy."

I think I need to review your argument concerning the application of Hosea in Romans. I see that as central to your understanding. I'll follow your lead if you point me towards the best starting point.

[Beck]

Who is the audience to whom Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthinas?



1 Corinthians 10 1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

As noted in another post concering Romans Paul used the word 'brethren' as referring to his kinsmen which Paul declared to be a Israelite. Here is seem to be no different. The theme is of eating of meats that have been sarcrificed to idol's (v.18)

I asked this question before of the council at Jerusalem which James spoke concering the Gentile convert to be abstain from meats offered to idol's and from blood....That seems odd to ask an Gentile to follow the laws of Moses?!!

But if these where understood to be 'brethren' Israelites that lived in Corthinan's that would seem to fit better to ask them to follow the laws of Moses.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Who is the audience to whom Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthinas?


1 Corinthians 10 1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
I think it's is pretty obvious that Paul was addressing the mixed congregation of believers (Jews and Gentiles). To see this, just imagine Paul was writing to a congregation of Jews only, but some of them were proselytes. Would he not have written the same words? The Gentile believers were converts to Christianity just like they would have been converts to Judaism. They were accepted and adopted into the community as if they were "natural born" Jews.



As noted in another post concering Romans Paul used the word 'brethren' as referring to his kinsmen which Paul declared to be a Israelite. Here is seem to be no different.

I presume you mean this verse:

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Paul is obviously talking about his "brethren according to the flesh" - he is not talking his brethren in Christ, so I don't understand why you mentioned this verse. Why do you say there is no difference between the two uses of "brethren"?



I asked this question before of the council at Jerusalem which James spoke concering the Gentile convert to be abstain from meats offered to idol's and from blood....That seems odd to ask an Gentile to follow the laws of Moses?!!

No, it was not odd at all! It seems perfectly clear to me. Christianity was brand new. They were trying to figure out how it related to it's "parent religion" Judaism. And when Gentiles began to convert in large numbers, there was a big question about their relation to the law. We see exactly the same thing in Galatians when Paul berated Peter of refusing to eat with Gentiles.



But if these where understood to be 'brethren' Israelites that lived in Corthinan's that would seem to fit better to ask them to follow the laws of Moses.
No. If they were understood to be "brethren Israelites" then they would have been classed right along with any other Jew.

[Beck]

I think it's is pretty obvious that Paul was addressing the mixed congregation of believers (Jews and Gentiles). To see this, just imagine Paul was writing to a congregation of Jews only, but some of them were proselytes. Would he not have written the same words? The Gentile believers were converts to Christianity just like they would have been converts to Judaism. They were accepted and adopted into the community as if they were "natural born" Jews.
How did the Gentiles "passed through the sea"? Would it not seem more fitting that Paul is addressing the children of Israel for him to say 'all' passed through the sea.

If not your claim is that Paul is addressing the gentile convert as if they were a Jew. hmmmm



I presume you mean this verse:

Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Paul is obviously talking about his "brethren according to the flesh" - he is not talking his brethren in Christ, so I don't understand why you mentioned this verse. Why do you say there is no difference between the two uses of "brethren"?

Both 1 Cor. & Romans Paul would address his audience as his brethren and here in Romans said," Who are Israelites"



No, it was not odd at all! It seems perfectly clear to me. Christianity was brand new. They were trying to figure out how it related to it's "parent religion" Judaism. And when Gentiles began to convert in large numbers, there was a big question about their relation to the law. We see exactly the same thing in Galatians when Paul berated Peter of refusing to eat with Gentiles.
Then Paul must been confused also for later he has Timothy to be circumcised. Why is there a need for him to be circumcised if there is nothing to circumcision? Peter didn't refuse to eat with the Gentiles, but only withdrew when certain ones from James can around. Why would that be the case hasn't the council of Jerusalem already taken place as maybe Paul's reference of Gal.2:1?

Paul's charge was that Peter and the other Jews where livings as Gentiles so why compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?!! Now how where they living that Paul would have called them living as Gentiles? Noting that they where among the Gentile converts that where uncircumcised.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How did the Gentiles "passed through the sea"? Would it not seem more fitting that Paul is addressing the children of Israel for him to say 'all' passed through the sea.

If not your claim is that Paul is addressing the gentile convert as if they were a Jew. hmmmm

Who said anything about the Gentiles passing through the sea? Let me annotate the text to express my understanding:

1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren [my fellow believers], that our [spiritual] fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
For the Gentiles, the "fathers" would be their "spiritual fathers" just like Abraham was called the "father of all who believe." I see no problem with this understanding, and indeed, I cannot imagine Paul writing anything different assuming he knew he was writing to a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles, as opposed to Jews and "crypto-Israelites."

I think it would be very helpful if you could explain how Paul would have expressed that verse if he knew he was writing to a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles?




I presume you mean this verse:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Paul is obviously talking about his "brethren according to the flesh" - he is not talking his brethren in Christ, so I don't understand why you mentioned this verse. Why do you say there is no difference between the two uses of "brethren"?
Both 1 Cor. & Romans Paul would address his audience as his brethren and here in Romans said," Who are Israelites"

Yes, and as I explained, when speaking specifically of Israelites he explicitly said "brethren according to the flesh" to distinguish them from his "brethren in Christ."




No, it was not odd at all! It seems perfectly clear to me. Christianity was brand new. They were trying to figure out how it related to it's "parent religion" Judaism. And when Gentiles began to convert in large numbers, there was a big question about their relation to the law. We see exactly the same thing in Galatians when Paul berated Peter of refusing to eat with Gentiles.
Then Paul must been confused also for later he has Timothy to be circumcised. Why is there a need for him to be circumcised if there is nothing to circumcision? Peter didn't refuse to eat with the Gentiles, but only withdrew when certain ones from James can around. Why would that be the case hasn't the council of Jerusalem already taken place as maybe Paul's reference of Gal.2:1?

Paul's charge was that Peter and the other Jews where livings as Gentiles so why compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?!! Now how where they living that Paul would have called them living as Gentiles? Noting that they where among the Gentile converts that where uncircumcised.

We don't know why Paul had Timothy circumcised. Maybe his understanding was not yet fully developed, or maybe he wanted to be able to avoid offending the Jews. We'll never know because the Bible doesn't tell us. But we do know that Paul explicitly taught against circumcision in Galatians.

The Jews were "living as Gentiles" because they had quit or been kicked out of the synagogues and were hanging out with Gentile converts to Christianity. I see nothing in the text that suggests Paul was saying that it was the Gentile converts who had actually been Israelites "living as Gentiles" before conversion to Christianity.

All the best.

[Beck]

Who said anything about the Gentiles passing through the sea? Let me annotate the text to express my understanding:

1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren [my fellow believers], that our [spiritual] fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
For the Gentiles, the "fathers" would be their "spiritual fathers" just like Abraham was called the "father of all who believe." I see no problem with this understanding, and indeed, I cannot imagine Paul writing anything different assuming he knew he was writing to a mixed group of Jews and Gentiles, as opposed to Jews and "crypto-Israelites."

If these are the spiritual fathers why do Paul make statements that they shouldn't follow after their spiritual fathers?


For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: 'The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.' 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.


Now if Paul was including himself and them as the children of Israel then yes their ancestors falled in the wilderness. This would be the same that the book of Hebrews would intruct the audience which I assume to be Jews. It is also claimed that Paul may have been the author.


Hebrews 3:16-19 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies perished in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief



We don't know why Paul had Timothy circumcised. Maybe his understanding was not yet fully developed, or maybe he wanted to be able to avoid offending the Jews. We'll never know because the Bible doesn't tell us. But we do know that Paul explicitly taught against circumcision in Galatians.
So is Paul a hypocrite? O course not! I do believe after the meeting of Acts 21 that Paul would obey the council in that the Jews that believed where eager to keep the laws of Moses. I believe Paul then taught to the Jews that where willing to keep the laws to continue,[circumcision] but to the Gentiles he placed not law. Now as for Timothy being both Jewish and Greek I believe Paul let him decide as well as Titus which Paul said didn't.


You made mention of Hosea and Romans I will gather my thoughts and post so that we may discuss them and see what comes up.

Thanks,

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If these are the spiritual fathers why do Paul make statements that they shouldn't follow after their spiritual fathers?

I meant "spiritual" as opposed to "literal." The point is simple: Paul was talking to fellow believers about the early Israelites as their "fathers" - literal in the case of Jews and "adoptive" in the case of converts. They were the "fathers" in the same sense as George Washington is the father of our country. It feels like you are trying to squeeze your doctrine from a rock in this case.



Now if Paul was including himself and them as the children of Israel then yes their ancestors falled in the wilderness. This would be the same that the book of Hebrews would intruct the audience which I assume to be Jews. It is also claimed that Paul may have been the author.

Hebrews 3:16-19 Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17 And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies perished in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief
And the "moral of the story" applies to all believers, Jew and Gentile alike. So I don't see anything that suggests the Gentiles were "crypto-Israelites." And that's the point I thought you were trying to establish.



So is Paul a hypocrite? O course not! I do believe after the meeting of Acts 21 that Paul would obey the council in that the Jews that believed where eager to keep the laws of Moses. I believe Paul then taught to the Jews that where willing to keep the laws to continue,[circumcision] but to the Gentiles he placed not law. Now as for Timothy being both Jewish and Greek I believe Paul let him decide as well as Titus which Paul said didn't.

What? Are you saying that the Law of Circumcision is binding on Jews and Jewish Christians?

Are you saying that the First Covenant remains in force, even after the death of the Testator?



You made mention of Hosea and Romans I will gather my thoughts and post so that we may discuss them and see what comes up.

Thanks,
That's probably a good place to focus the discussion.

Great chatting.

[Beck]

I meant "spiritual" as opposed to "literal." The point is simple: Paul was talking to fellow believers about the early Israelites as their "fathers" - literal in the case of Jews and "adoptive" in the case of converts. They were the "fathers" in the same sense as George Washington is the father of our country. It feels like you are trying to squeeze your doctrine from a rock in this case.
That rock is pretty hard :lol:




What? Are you saying that the Law of Circumcision is binding on Jews and Jewish Christians?

Are you saying that the First Covenant remains in force, even after the death of the Testator?

I would like to attemp to answer your question. Paul was charged that he spoke against the laws of Moses to the Jews that were among the Gentiles, but Paul himself said that he commited nothing against the people or customs of our fathers.



That's probably a good place to focus the discussion.

Great chatting.

Hosea 1:10-1110 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel


Romans 9:24-2524 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles [nations]?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.


Isaiah 11:10,12 10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.

12 He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered [dispersed] people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.


There seems to be a cry that goes out to gather together the dispersed of Israel which is has become as the sand of the sea. Multitudes, Nations, Peoples, Tongues ...

Jesus himself were asked, Where would he go that they shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?(John 7:33-36) Was the Jews asking that he now was leaving and going to teach the Greeks or the dispersed Jews which was among the Greeks?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What? Are you saying that the Law of Circumcision is binding on Jews and Jewish Christians?

Are you saying that the First Covenant remains in force, even after the death of the Testator?
I would like to attemp to answer your question. Paul was charged that he spoke against the laws of Moses to the Jews that were among the Gentiles, but Paul himself said that he commited nothing against the people or customs of our fathers.

I take that as a "yes." I think it is an error for many reasons, not the least of which being because it is inconsistent with Paul's much more mature and explicit opinion which he expressed in Galatians:

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 ¶ Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
The doctrine of "two concurrent covenants" - one for people who want to be under the Mosaic Covenant (Jews) and another for folks who want to be under the New Covenant (Christians) is entirely unbiblical in my opinion. The New Covenant supersedes the Old. That's what it's all about.

Is this doctrine about "two concurrent covenants" an essential aspect of your understanding of Scripture?



Hosea 1:10-1110 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel


Romans 9:24-2524 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles [nations]?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.


Isaiah 11:10,12 10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.

12 He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered [dispersed] people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.


There seems to be a cry that goes out to gather together the dispersed of Israel which is has become as the sand of the sea. Multitudes, Nations, Peoples, Tongues ...

Jesus himself were asked, Where would he go that they shall not find him? will he go unto the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles?(John 7:33-36) Was the Jews asking that he now was leaving and going to teach the Greeks or the dispersed Jews which was among the Greeks?
I admit these verses give prima facie evidence in support of you interpretation. I will have to reflect a little more to see what I really think. But my first impression is that Paul used Hosea to speak of how the Gospel would go to the genuine Gentiles, not "crypto-Israelites." It's rather like your attempt to use the "firstfruits" idea to support the idea that the "harvest" was only of Israelites - it feels like you are forcing the language beyond its intended meaning. But I'm not sure, so I'll reflect a little more and get back to you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

How did the Gentiles "passed through the sea"? Would it not seem more fitting that Paul is addressing the children of Israel for him to say 'all' passed through the sea.

If not your claim is that Paul is addressing the gentile convert as if they were a Jew. hmmmm

Hey Beck,

I wanted to revisit this point because you should not be surprised that Gentile converts to Judaism were and are treated "as if they were a Jew." After conversion to become Jews, they were Jews! I've researched this quite a bit because there is a huge mountain of confusion relating to the question of what defines a "Jew." Here is how I explained things in a post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=18687#post18687) last year in response to Joel's assertion that a Gentile could never "become" a Jew:



Let's take the fast road to truth. Would you mind answering my question about what defines a Jew? Specifically, could you answer the question about Ruth - was she a Jew? Did she become a Jew? If you don't want to answer this question, please tell me why. It seems essential to the topic we are discussing. Here is how I presented the question in the last post:

This is from an article called Who is a Jew (http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm) from Jewfaq.org:
Who is a Jew?

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

This has been established since the earliest days of Judaism. In the Torah, you will see many references to "the strangers who dwell among you" or "righteous proselytes" or "righteous strangers." These are various classifications of non-Jews who lived among Jews, adopting some or all of the beliefs and practices of Judaism without going through the formal process of conversion and becoming Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.

Several people have written to me asking about King David: was he a Jew, given that one of his female ancestors, Ruth, was not a Jew? This conclusion is based on two faulty premises: first of all, Ruth was a Jew, and even if she wasn't, that would not affect David's status as a Jew. Ruth converted to Judaism before marrying Boaz and bearing Obed. See Ruth 1:16, where Ruth states her intention to convert. After Ruth converted, she was a Jew, and all of her children born after the conversion were Jewish as well. But even if Ruth were not Jewish at the time Obed was born, that would not affect King David's status as a Jew, because Ruth is an ancestor of David's father, not of David's mother, and David's Jewish status is determined by his mother.
Modern Jews do not recognize the idea that there is a difference between a "natural descendant of Abraham" and a convert.

Therefore, it seems pretty clear that Paul would not have divided up his congregation into "Jews" and "proselytes" when writing his letters. He treated everyone as if they shared the same Jewish heritage. But we already knew that, didn't we, since he also wrote this:
Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
See that? The "Gentiles" were aliens from the commonwealth of ISRAEL. There is no indication that Paul thought they were not "crypto-Israelites." And he made it clear that now they were full members - fellowcitizens with the saints - in the commonwealth of Israel, so of course he would treat them "as if they were Jews."

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Romans 9:24-2524 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles [nations]?
25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

I think your quote is misleading because it needs to be read in the larger context, and with the understanding that when Paul used "Jew" and "Israelite" synonymolusly:
Romans 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews [= Israelites] only, but also from among Gentiles [= non-Isralites]. 25 As He says also in Hosea, "I will call those who were not My people, 'My people,' And her who was not beloved, 'beloved.'" 26 "And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, 'you are not My people,' There they shall be called sons of the living God." 27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly." 29 And just as Isaiah foretold, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, We would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah." 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
Point 1: In vs 30, Paul contrasted "Gentiles" with "Israel." Does this not imply that he did not see the Gentiles as "Israelites"?

Point 2: Paul emphasized that only a remnant of Israel (the Jews) would be saved.

Point 3: Paul's point was that the Gentiles [non-Israelites] attained righteous through faith that the Israelites failed to attain through the Law.

[Beck]

I take that as a "yes." I think it is an error for many reasons, not the least of which being because it is inconsistent with Paul's much more mature and explicit opinion which he expressed in Galatians:

Galatians 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 ¶ Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
The doctrine of "two concurrent covenants" - one for people who want to be under the Mosaic Covenant (Jews) and another for folks who want to be under the New Covenant (Christians) is entirely unbiblical in my opinion. The New Covenant supersedes the Old. That's what it's all about.

Is this doctrine about "two concurrent covenants" an essential aspect of your understanding of Scripture?

Paul seems to have apparent contradictions. One for the Jewish believers as himself and those of the Gentile believers as noted from Acts 21. We see that Paul went to great pains to dispel the false rumors going around that he was teaching the believing Jews to forsake circumcision and the Law of Moses, and to show all the believers in Jerusalem that he still kept the Law himself. But if Paul was free in Christ, why was he still keeping the Law and advocating that the Jewish believers remain zealous for the Law? Wasn’t he, according to his own words, in danger of falling from grace and being severed from Christ?

And didn’t he say repeatedly throughout his letters that there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile - that in Christ we are all one? Isn’t that a double standard, then, for him and the other believing Jews to keep the Law, while telling the Gentiles NOT to get circumcised and that THEY only have to keep 4 points of the Law – abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols, blood, things strangled, and fornication? Is Paul a hypocrite, or is he misunderstood?


We already saw an example of that distortion in Acts 21, where people were spreading false (or misinformed) rumors about what Paul was teaching: “They have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.” We see clearly that these people who made these assumptions about Paul’s teaching were in error, that they were, in fact, FALSE rumors. “And all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you.”

So as not to overwhelm these baby Gentile believers, the elders and apostles prioritized the four most important things that these new believers needed to avoid right away:

1. Idolatry (10 Commandments)
2. Fornication (Law of Moses)
3. Eating what is strangled (Law of Moses)
4. Blood (Law of Moses)

Let’s look more carefully at the verse immediately following this list of four instructions for baby Gentile believers: “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” The only logical inference that I can make from this verse is that the elders and apostles assumed that these new Gentile believers would be in the synagogue every Sabbath, learning little by little about the Law of Moses. So as not to overwhelm the baby believers, the elders gave them a few simple instructions and told them that as they heard the Law of Moses every Sabbath, they would learn more about the instructions of God to His people, but in the meantime they should just focus on these four things. This is the KEY to understanding ALL these apparent contradictions.

The Jews were already walking in obedience to God’s Law, more or less, even before they believed in Jesus as the Messiah. Before they accepted Jesus, they were keeping the Law as best they could, but they were trusting in the blood of bulls and goats to atone for their sin when they sinned against God’s Law. After they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, they began to trust in the Blood of Jesus to atone for their sin when they sinned against God’s Law, and with the help of the Holy Spirit, they continued to walk in obedience to God’s Law out of love for God. In Acts 21 we see that the Jewish believers in Jesus were ZEALOUS for the Law. We also see in that same chapter that Paul, as a Jew who had put his trust in the Blood of Jesus to save him, still continued to keep the commandments of God because he loved God and wanted to be obedient to Him, but not so for the coverted Gentiles they knew nothing about how to live their lives in obedience to God now that they were saved. The elders knew they would have to teach them little by little about who God is, what His Word says, and how they were now to live their lives as God’s people. This is why Paul himself circumsized Timohty while Titus was not compelled to become circumsized.



I admit these verses give prima facie evidence in support of you interpretation. I will have to reflect a little more to see what I really think. But my first impression is that Paul used Hosea to speak of how the Gospel would go to the genuine Gentiles, not "crypto-Israelites." It's rather like your attempt to use the "firstfruits" idea to support the idea that the "harvest" was only of Israelites - it feels like you are forcing the language beyond its intended meaning. But I'm not sure, so I'll reflect a little more and get back to you.

There are other scriptures that shows what I think is to be the use of 'nations' given reference to the nation of Israel, but I wanted first to go through these.

[joel]

Beck,

Paul makes distinctions, ...... as he practices "rightly dividing the word of truth".

He says that he is the apostle to the nations......he is entrusted with the gospel to the "uncircumcision".

Whereas, Peter, who was among those who actually witnessed the Lord's eathly ministry, was the apostle to the "circumcision", having been entrusted with the keys of the kingdom directly from Jesus, to the brothers of the Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah.

The two apostles did not have different messages in that the gospel does not change. They did, however, have different spheres of influence....i. e. a measure that limited their authority ....but not beyond.

When Paul proclaimed the gospel in the Acts and ministered, he first came unto the Jews in the synagogue in the city in which he entered and testified of Christ to the Jews first. Peter did not go into the Gentile realms with the gospel of Christ.

Paul, however, when he came back to Jerusalem as a Jew, honored the traditions of the Jews and did not exercise his apostolic authority as being the apostle to the nations.

These differences may appear first as conflicts. However, depending on the audience to whom the truth of God is presented, there are valid and applicable differences between Paul and Peter.

What do you see here.........?

Joel

[Beck]

Hey Beck,

I wanted to revisit this point because you should not be surprised that Gentile converts to Judaism were and are treated "as if they were a Jew." After conversion to become Jews, they were Jews! I've researched this quite a bit because there is a huge mountain of confusion relating to the question of what defines a "Jew." Here is how I explained things in a post (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=18687#post18687) last year in response to Joel's assertion that a Gentile could never "become" a Jew:

I would agree to the idea that the flesh of man don't define who is a Jew, but is that what is in use here?



Therefore, it seems pretty clear that Paul would not have divided up his congregation into "Jews" and "proselytes" when writing his letters. He treated everyone as if they shared the same Jewish heritage. But we already knew that, didn't we, since he also wrote this:
Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
How is Paul using that word Uncircumcision [ἀκροβυστία]? If it's the same way he uses Circumcision [περιτομή] would that mean those Gentiles [ἔθνος]
where now circumcisized in the flesh by hands?

Joining both to make one new man. That seems familiar to that of Ezekiel's vision of the Two Sticks coming together to make One Stick.


Ezekiel 37-19-2219Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

21And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.






12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

This middle wall maybe seen as separating the covenant keepers and the covenant breakers. Those that where the out cast of Israel did not remain faithful and was called by the Jews the uncircumcision. These where not allowed to enter the gates of the city. Until Jesus came and broken down that wall of seperation between Judah and Israel.




16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
How are Gentiles and Jews reconcile
to God as one? This surely implies bring back together the children of Israel.
To those which are afar off and nigh.



19 [B]Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; If these are the out cast of Israel they would no more be strangers and foreigners but joined once again as fellowcitizens.




See that? The "Gentiles" were aliens from the commonwealth of ISRAEL. There is no indication that Paul thought they were not "crypto-Israelites." And he made it clear that now they were full members - fellowcitizens with the saints - in the commonwealth of Israel, so of course he would treat them "as if they were Jews."

All the best,

Richard

Yes.

[Beck]

I think your quote is misleading because it needs to be read in the larger context, and with the understanding that when Paul used "Jew" and "Israelite" synonymolusly:
Romans 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews [= Israelites] only, but also from among Gentiles [= non-Isralites]. 25 As He says also in Hosea, "I will call those who were not My people, 'My people,' And her who was not beloved, 'beloved.'" 26 "And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, 'you are not My people,' There they shall be called sons of the living God." 27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word upon the earth, thoroughly and quickly." 29 And just as Isaiah foretold, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left to us a posterity, We would have become as Sodom, and would have resembled Gomorrah." 30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.
Point 1: In vs 30, Paul contrasted "Gentiles" with "Israel." Does this not imply that he did not see the Gentiles as "Israelites"?

Point 2: Paul emphasized that only a remnant of Israel (the Jews) would be saved.

Point 3: Paul's point was that the Gentiles [non-Israelites] attained righteous through faith that the Israelites failed to attain through the Law.

I would like to turn our discussion to Isaiah for a moment. Lets consider Isaiah 42:6


6I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles [nations]; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.


First to understand this passage who are the blind that they my see [light unto the nations]. We can fine that Isaiah defines that for us.


Isaiah 42:16-1916 And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.

17 They shall be turned back, they shall be greatly ashamed, that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images, Ye are our gods.

18Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.

19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD's servant?

Who then is my servant?

Isaiah 44:2121Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.

Isaiah 41:8"But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen,Descendant of Abraham My friend"


Isaiah 11:12 12And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

[Beck]

Since no one seem to be responsing I wanted to address Isaiah use of the bind having their eyes open in an spiritual sence as the light of the good news is spread unto the gentiles [nations, multitudes].



To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

If this is refering to the general gentile how is that person in a spiritual prison or in the prison house? In other word it's implying that the good news is to set the captive free. Again who is in captivity the gentiles or the out cast of Israel? It's that the theme of Isaiah 11? :confused:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Since no one seem to be responsing I wanted to address Isaiah use of the bind having their eyes open in an spiritual sence as the light of the good news is spread unto the gentiles [nations, multitudes].



To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

If this is refering to the general gentile how is that person in a spiritual prison or in the prison house? In other word it's implying that the good news is to set the captive free. Again who is in captivity the gentiles or the out cast of Israel? It's that the theme of Isaiah 11? :confused:
Hey there Beck,

Sorry for the slow response. I got distracted with other issues.

Now in answer to your question:

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
Everyone, Jew and Gentile, was in the "prison house" of sin. As it is written:


Romans 3:21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.
Does that work for you?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Therefore, it seems pretty clear that Paul would not have divided up his congregation into "Jews" and "proselytes" when writing his letters. He treated everyone as if they shared the same Jewish heritage. But we already knew that, didn't we, since he also wrote this:
Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
How is Paul using that word Uncircumcision [ἀκροβυστία]? If it's the same way he uses Circumcision [περιτομή] would that mean those Gentiles [ἔθνος] where now circumcisized in the flesh by hands?

No, of course not! The term "Circumcision in the flesh" means Jew / Israelite / person under the Mosaic Covenant. The term "Uncircumcision" means "Gentile."



Joining both to make one new man. That seems familiar to that of Ezekiel's vision of the Two Sticks coming together to make One Stick.

Ezekiel 37-19-2219Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

21And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.This middle wall maybe seen as separating the covenant keepers and the covenant breakers. Those that where the out cast of Israel did not remain faithful and was called by the Jews the uncircumcision. These where not allowed to enter the gates of the city. Until Jesus came and broken down that wall of seperation between Judah and Israel.

I can understand why you would think that, but I don't see how it fits with the "Big Picture" in which the Gospel goes from Israel to the Gentiles. That's the "one new man." In your view, the "one new man" is really the old man carnal Israel represented by all 12 tribes. That doesn't resonate with the tone of the NT at all.

If your view is correct, then all Christians throughout all history have been completely mistaken about the most elementary and fundamental teachings of the Bible. Why would God create such confusion by writing about the "lost Israelites" as if they were really "Gentiles"? It seems like a massive confusion.

[Brother Les]

Hey there Beck,

You have covered a lot of territory. I will need to establish the basics before I can catch up with your argument.

It appears you are saying the word "ethnos" (usually translated as "Gentiles") actually refers to physical descendants of the lost tribes.

I see two fundamental problems with this suggestion:

1) There is no such thing as the "lost tribes." They have been fully absorbed into the Gentiles. I explained this in Post #4, and you have yet to reply. I would be very interested in your understanding of this argument.

2) The Gospel is supposed to go to the entire world - to both "Jews and Gentiles" - if you are correct, it goes only to Israel. The Gentiles are left out.

Also, I'm not sure that your argument about "audience identification" is correct. Paul declares that Abraham is the father of all believers, so Rom 4:1 does not identify only physical descendants.

So ... I'd like to pursue this topic, but I think we need to work on the foundation a bit. If there is no such thing as the "lost tribes" then we have a rather big problem.

All the best,

Richard

I have not read all of the posts and will slowly catch up, but wish to point out that Josephus knew of the Ten Tribes in his day. Your statements here, Ram, are for a clear black and white frame. That is not the case. All of the Promises of the NC were given to 'all Israel' (this includes prosylites, ie. Greeks/barbarians). The Birthright was given to Josephus and his Sons, Epriam and Mannaseh. this Birthright was never removed. It is Ephraim (vs Judah) who is to lead the NC Church of the Full House of Israel.


"
Antiquities Book II 5:2
XWhen Esdras had received this epistle, he was very joyful, and began to worship God, and confessed that he had been the cause of the king's great favor to him, and that for the same reason he gave all the thanks to God. So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media. And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Iomans, while the [ten tribes] are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers. Now there came a great number of priests, and Levites, and porters, and sacred singers, and sacred servants to Esdras. So he gathered those that were in the captivity together beyond Euphrates, and staid there three days, and ordained a fast for them, that they might make their prayers to God for their preservation, that they might suffer no misfortunes by the way, either from their enemies, or from any other ill accident; for Esdras had said beforehand that he had told the king how God would preserve them, and so he had not thought fit to request that he would send horsemen to conduct them. So when they had finished their prayers, they removed from Euphrates on the twelfth day of the first month of the seventh year of the reign of Xerxes, and they came to Jerusalem on the fifth month of the same year. Now Esdras presented the sacred money to the treasurers, who were of the family of the priests, of silver six hundred and fifty talents, vessels of silver one hundred talents, vessels of gold twenty talents, vessels of brass, that was more precious than gold, (8) twelve talents by weight; for these Presents had been made by the king and his counselors, and by all the Israelites that staid at Babylon. So when Esdras had delivered these things to the priests, he gave to God, as the appointed sacrifices of whole burnt-offerings, twelve bulls on account of the common preservation of the people, ninety rams, seventy-two lambs, and twelve kids of the goats, for the remission of sins. He also delivered the king's epistle to the king's officers, and to the governors of Celesyria and Phoenicia; and as they were under a necessity of doing what was enjoined by him, they honored our nation, and were assistant to them in all their necessities."


When reading the Letters of Peter, he is writing to The Disporia. He is writing to the very same people that Paul wrote to and said that He agreed with all of Pauls writings. Peter stated multiple times in his 'letter' with the statements (paraphrase)"as it is written", meaning that these 'Galatians', ect are of the Northen House of Israel knew of all of the OT Scriptures.

Hosea 1:
4And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.

5And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel, in the valley of Jezreel.

6And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

7But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

8Now when she had weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son.

9Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God.
10Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.
11Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.
1 Peter 2:
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. 11Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

12Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

The NewCovenant is for 'Israel',the Sons of Light, the Sons of God.

[Beck]

Hey there Beck,

Sorry for the slow response. I got distracted with other issues.

Hi Richard,

No problem I understand everyone would like to have you response to thier comments. :thumb:



Now in answer to your question:

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.
Everyone, Jew and Gentile, was in the "prison house" of sin. As it is written:

Does that work for you?

In a way yes, but we still need to define who are the Gentiles. The use of the word 'ethnos' in Isaiah chapter 11 while denoting nations maybe better fitted by the interpertation of 'Multitudes'. Verse 10 said, that an ensign or flag/signal as one that stood for the house of Judah and that the flag shall the multitudes seek.


In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.(NIV)

So in what context is the multitudes to gather unto him? Here in Isaiah it speaks of recovering the dispersed of Judah and shall assemble the outcast of Israel together. So if the remnant is gathered why do we force it to mean all the Gentiles? Acts 2:5 visioned those Jews as strangers from every nation under heaven and these spoke in their national tongue.


Utterly amazed, they asked: 'Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9 Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[a] 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome (NIV)

That would be how John described the 144,000 as he heard that number he then 'Behold' looked to see that number and saw a great multitude from all nations and kindreds (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5443&t=KJV) Strong's G5443 - phylē [persons descending from one of the twelve sons of the patriarch, Jacob].

Another case can be made in how Isaiah spoke of the 'servant' which is blind. In verses 6-7 of chapter 42 Isaiah asked 'Who is blind', but my servant. In many places he calls Judah and Israel as his servant. So in that context who is to be open the blind eyes to bring out the prisoners from the prison? But Judah and Israel.



6I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house

19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD's servant?

44:21Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.

[Beck]

No, of course not! The term "Circumcision in the flesh" means Jew / Israelite / person under the Mosaic Covenant. The term "Uncircumcision" means "Gentile."

What I was pointing out is if Circumcision of the flesh by hands is meaning the Jewish covenant of the removal of the foreskin, then is Paul impling that in times past they the Ephesians where called by the Jews the Uncircumcision. I asked how is Paul using that word? If he using Circumcision by the Jews as the removal of the foreskin then at what time was the Ephesians circumcisized?

Doesn't "in the flesh" mean the same for both or not?



I can understand why you would think that, but I don't see how it fits with the "Big Picture" in which the Gospel goes from Israel to the Gentiles. That's the "one new man." In your view, the "one new man" is really the old man carnal Israel represented by all 12 tribes. That doesn't resonate with the tone of the NT at all.

If your view is correct, then all Christians throughout all history have been completely mistaken about the most elementary and fundamental teachings of the Bible. Why would God create such confusion by writing about the "lost Israelites" as if they were really "Gentiles"? It seems like a massive confusion.

What is depicked in Acts 2 Jews out of every [all] nation [Gentile] under heaven.

In other words, to gather in the remnant of Israel that would take the gathering of all Gentiles nations?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have not read all of the posts and will slowly catch up, but wish to point out that Josephus knew of the Ten Tribes in his day. Your statements here, Ram, are for a clear black and white frame. That is not the case. All of the Promises of the NC were given to 'all Israel' (this includes prosylites, ie. Greeks/barbarians). The Birthright was given to Josephus and his Sons, Epriam and Mannaseh. this Birthright was never removed. It is Ephraim (vs Judah) who is to lead the NC Church of the Full House of Israel.


"
Antiquities Book II 5:2
And when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Iomans, while the [ten tribes] are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers. Now there came a great number of priests, and Levites, and porters, and sacred singers, and sacred servants to Esdras.

Hey there Brother Les,

The quote from Josephus looks like mere mythology about the lost ten tribes. I see nothing that indicates any real knowledge of where they really were.

And if the still existed at that time, why have left no trace in history?

As for the carnal "birthright" that was "never removed" - I must disagree. The flesh profits nothing. The children of the flesh are not the children of God. And besides, the "lost ten tribes" don't exist, so what does it mean for a non-existent group to have a "birthright"?



When reading the Letters of Peter, he is writing to The Disporia. He is writing to the very same people that Paul wrote to and said that He agreed with all of Pauls writings. Peter stated multiple times in his 'letter' with the statements (paraphrase)"as it is written", meaning that these 'Galatians', ect are of the Northen House of Israel knew of all of the OT Scriptures.

You will need to fill in the details of how you arrived at that conclusion. Peter used the phrase "12 tribes" as a symbol of all believers. I've given lot's of reasons to reject the idea that he "Gentiles" were really "crypto-Israelites." It would be good if you responded to those posts so we can get on the "same page."




The NewCovenant is for 'Israel',the Sons of Light, the Sons of God.
Say what? Paul said the New Covenant was for both Jews and Gentiles. He never said anything about the northern kingdom.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Another case can be made in how Isaiah spoke of the 'servant' which is blind. In verses 6-7 of chapter 42 Isaiah asked 'Who is blind', but my servant. In many places he calls Judah and Israel as his servant. So in that context who is to be open the blind eyes to bring out the prisoners from the prison? But Judah and Israel.


6I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; 7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house

19 Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD's servant?

44:21Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.

But we know the true answer is Christ is the Servant, and he himself said that HE fulfilled this prophecy. So "Jacob" and "Israel" merely served as prophetic TYPES which Christ being the Anti-type.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What I was pointing out is if Circumcision of the flesh by hands is meaning the Jewish covenant of the removal of the foreskin, then is Paul impling that in times past they the Ephesians where called by the Jews the Uncircumcision. I asked how is Paul using that word? If he using Circumcision by the Jews as the removal of the foreskin then at what time was the Ephesians circumcisized?

Doesn't "in the flesh" mean the same for both or not?

I don't understand the confusion. The Ephesians were Gentiles before the became Christians. Hence, Paul referred to them as having been "Gentiles" who were not "circumcised in the flesh."




I can understand why you would think that, but I don't see how it fits with the "Big Picture" in which the Gospel goes from Israel to the Gentiles. That's the "one new man." In your view, the "one new man" is really the old man carnal Israel represented by all 12 tribes. That doesn't resonate with the tone of the NT at all.

If your view is correct, then all Christians throughout all history have been completely mistaken about the most elementary and fundamental teachings of the Bible. Why would God create such confusion by writing about the "lost Israelites" as if they were really "Gentiles"? It seems like a massive confusion.
What is depicked in Acts 2 Jews out of every [all] nation [Gentile] under heaven.

In other words, to gather in the remnant of Israel that would take the gathering of all Gentiles nations?

Your "other words" does not seem accurate. Acts 2 says nothing about "the gathering all Gentile nations." On the contrary, it speaks specifically of gathering Jews who knew they were Jews from out of every Gentile nation. There is not a hint of any "pseudo-Gentiles" who were really "crypto-Israelites."

In Acts 2 (Pentecost) we see the fulfillment of Ezek 37 and the "two sticks" united in Christ. This is reiterated in Hebrews 8:8 where the New Covenant is made with the two "houses" of Israel and Judah. That's just Stage One. Stage Two began when the Gospel went out to the Gentiles.

[Beck]

But we know the true answer is Christ is the Servant, and he himself said that HE fulfilled this prophecy. So "Jacob" and "Israel" merely served as prophetic TYPES which Christ being the Anti-type.


I agree concerning types and anti types, but Who were the blind that Jesus was sent unto? Matthew 15:24?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree concerning types and anti types, but Who were the blind that Jesus was sent unto? Matthew 15:24?
Everyone knows that Christ was sent to the Jews (whom he called the "last sheep of Israel") during his earthly ministry. But then he was preached unto the Gentiles too ...

[Beck]

In Acts 2 (Pentecost) we see the fulfillment of Ezek 37 and the "two sticks" united in Christ. This is reiterated in Hebrews 8:8 where the New Covenant is made with the two "houses" of Israel and Judah. That's just Stage One. Stage Two began when the Gospel went out to the Gentiles.


Yes, the two sticks becoming one nation [Judah and Israel] under the new covenant, but were are these two stages in scripture that would in conclude the gentiles? Are you saying to the Jews first [stage one] and the gentiles [stage two]? That among the gentiles is the remnant of Israel and there's no way they would be found so God's plan includes all nations of Gentiles. Is that the concept?

[Beck]

Everyone knows that Christ was sent to the Jews (whom he called the "last sheep of Israel") during his earthly ministry. But then he was preached unto the Gentiles too ...

Oh he himself didn't nor his disciples, but he [the Christ]was preached unto the Gentiles by Paul.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, the two sticks becoming one nation [Judah and Israel] under the new covenant, but were are these two stages in scripture that would in conclude the gentiles? Are you saying to the Jews first [stage one] and the gentiles [stage two]? That among the gentiles is the remnant of Israel and there's no way they would be found so God's plan includes all nations of Gentiles. Is that the concept?
To the Jews first: This happened at Pentecost, when the "two sticks" were joined under "one shepherd" (Christ, Ezek 37:24):

Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Note how this destroys the hyper-literalistic interpretation. Christ is here typified as David.

And also to the Gentile: The Gospel was never intended for the "Jew" (i.e. Israelite according to the flesh) only. And God did include the Gentiles because "there's no way they [lost Israelites] would be found" - "they" do not exist. There is no one to "find." The "lost Israelites" have bred themselves into oblivion by interbreeding with Gentiles. In terms of DNA, all Gentiles now are as much an "Israelite" as anyone else. I've explained this many times ... do you understand this point?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh he himself didn't nor his disciples, but he [the Christ]was preached unto the Gentiles by Paul.
Peter preached to Gentile Cornelius. And we can presume he preached to the Gentile Christians with whom he ate until the Judaizers from James showed up.

[Beck]

To the Jews first: This happened at Pentecost, when the "two sticks" were joined under "one shepherd" (Christ, Ezek 37:24):

Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Note how this destroys the hyper-literalistic interpretation. Christ is here typified as David.

And also to the Gentile: The Gospel was never intended for the "Jew" (i.e. Israelite according to the flesh) only. And God did include the Gentiles because "there's no way they [lost Israelites] would be found" - "they" do not exist. There is no one to "find." The "lost Israelites" have bred themselves into oblivion by interbreeding with Gentiles. In terms of DNA, all Gentiles now are as much an "Israelite" as anyone else. I've explained this many times ... do you understand this point?

Hi Richard,

I have some questions when looking over the passages from Isaiah and Acts. In Isaiah 11:11-12 it tells of the recover of the remnant of his people from Assyria. In verse 12 it states the assembly of the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Now as you have shown that passage fits Acts 2 in that the Jews from every nation under heaven. Here's my question or questions.


Where those in Acts only those depersed of Judah?



How would he assemble the outcasts of Israel?


Now concerning Ezekiel's two sticks of Judah and Israel. In reference to the house of Israel that was scattered among the heathen.

Ezekiel 36:24 24 For I will take you out of the nations;[Gentiles] I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.


How should God gather the house of Israel from among the heathen?



How was the two sticks one of Judah and one of Israel "when the "two sticks" were joined under "one shepherd" (Christ, Ezek 37:24)" represented on the day of penetcost as Jews and Israelites?


Richard, thanks for your time and patience

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I have some questions when looking over the passages from Isaiah and Acts. In Isaiah 11:11-12 it tells of the recover of the remnant of his people from Assyria. In verse 12 it states the assembly of the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

Now as you have shown that passage fits Acts 2 in that the Jews from every nation under heaven. Here's my question or questions.


Where those in Acts only those depersed of Judah?



How would he assemble the outcasts of Israel?


Now concerning Ezekiel's two sticks of Judah and Israel. In reference to the house of Israel that was scattered among the heathen.

Ezekiel 36:24 24 For I will take you out of the nations;[Gentiles] I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.


How should God gather the house of Israel from among the heathen?



How was the two sticks one of Judah and one of Israel "when the "two sticks" were joined under "one shepherd" (Christ, Ezek 37:24)" represented on the day of penetcost as Jews and Israelites?


Richard, thanks for your time and patience
Hey there Beck,

You asked:

Were those in Acts only those depersed of Judah?

No. I don't think we are supposed to take those as technical definitions of two separate groups. It seems the language is merely poetic parallelism:

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations,
and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather together the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.
This kind of parallelism is extremely common in the Hebrew Scriptures.

How would he assemble the outcasts of Israel?

In Christ. The same way he gathered the "dispersed of Judah."

How should God gather the house of Israel from among the heathen?

Ezekiel 36:24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. 25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. 26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
That was obviously fulfilled at Pentecost. God "gathered" Jews ( = Israelites) from all the nations (Gentiles) under heaven, just like it says in Acts 2.

How was the two sticks one of Judah and one of Israel "when the "two sticks" were joined under "one shepherd" (Christ, Ezek 37:24)"
represented on the day of penetcost as Jews and Israelites?

The Jews (= Isralites) were gathered from all the nations (Gentiles) under heaven, and joined as one in Christ at Pentecost when 3000 believed.

[Beck]

Hey there Beck,

You asked:

Were those in Acts only those depersed of Judah?

No. I don't think we are supposed to take those as technical definitions of two separate groups. It seems the language is merely poetic parallelism:

Isaiah 11:12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations,
and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather together the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth.
This kind of parallelism is extremely common in the Hebrew Scriptures.



Hi Richard,
Can you show me what you mean by common parallelism? I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,
Can you show me what you mean by common parallelism? I think I know what you mean, but I'm not sure.
Here are a few examples:

Shew me thy ways, O Lord;
Teach me thy paths.

They shall eat of the fruit of their own way,
And be filled with their own devices

Saul hath slain his thousands,
And David his ten thousands


Just Google Hebrew Poetic Parallelism and you'll find all the info you could need, and more pages than you could read.

[Brother Les]

Ram,
ETA: I just noticed an apparent inconsistency. If "Gentiles = Lost Tribes of Israel" then Christ's statement that he was not sent to the Gentiles but only to Israel would not make any sense.
__________________


Ram
The inconsistency was that Jesus was distinguishing between Gentile and Israelite while you are saying that the Gentiles are Israelites. I guess we'll have to be more careful with our words. I am now getting the impression that you think the word "Gentile" has two meanings in the NT:

Sometimes the word "Gentile" denotes the lost tribes of Israel.
Sometimes the word "Gentile" denotes the actual Gentiles (folks not physically descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and never bound by the Mosaic covenant).
I think it would be very helpful if you spelled out clearly exactly what you think the term "Gentile" means.

Strongs : Gentiles
Transliteration
gowy
Pronunciation

gō'·ē (Key)


Parts of Speech
masculine noun, proper masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

Apparently from the same root as גֵּוָה (H1465)

TWOT Reference
326e

Outline of Biblical Usage n m
1) nation, people

a) nation, people

1) usually of non-Hebrew people

2) of descendants of Abraham
3) of Israel
b) of swarm of locusts, other animals (fig.)

n pr m
c) Goyim? = "nations"

[Brother Les]

Beck
Peter had a statement concerning them [Jews from every nation].

Acts 2:39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call
Here is Peter saying that all Gentiles as many as the Lord God would call is the promise given to? If so why does it take a vision of revelation that the Gentiles is clean before the Lord some three years later?

So those that are 'afar off' would be the lost children of Israel of which Jesus commanded to go teach and baptize, right?

Ram
James and Peter spoke of the "12 tribes" as a metonymy for the "people of God." They weren't thinking in strictly literal terms. They wouldn't think to check the ID of their audience. Just like the New Jerusalem had the names of the 12 tribes and the 12 apostles to symbolize the people of God.

In Second Peter, Peter says that he agrees with everything that Paul has written, "even if it is hard for some to understand". He also says that he is writing to the very same people that Paul wrote to. We know that Paul wrote mainly to Gentiles. Peter calls theses People The Disporia, 'Strangers and sojouners abroad', he would never say that about Judah, but opnly Ephraim. James or Peter would not make a sick joke of calling 'Jews', 'the 12 tribes'. The 'Jews' would be insulted as also the 'assimulated' Northern House of Israel. that makes no sence of insulting Jews and Eprhraim if they 'only' meant 'Jews'.... of The Temple cultus (practicing or not...)



Ram
No, I don't see it that way at all. Those "afar off" simply refers to those Jews living a long ways away. Is there anything that would indicate "those afar off" refers to "crypto-Israelites" who do not even know they are Israelites?

You assume that the people of the Disporia do not know that they are not 'Israelites'. Peter in his letters says 'as it is written' and speaking of Sara and Abraham "1 Peter 3: 6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement" Quoting The Prophets in the rejection of the Chief Corner stone. These people knew the OT because their Fathers knew the OT. All of the NC Covenant Promises were Given to the Whole House of Israel. You wanting to push the First Century Jews as a representative of The Whole House does not make it so in any way shape or form. Paul knew that he was from the Tribe of Benjamin, the only thing that made him a 'Jew' was his Religion.

Gal.1:
12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace.

Paul was only a Jew because of Religion that involved covenant, nothing else. The House of Israel was no longer in the Mosaic Covenant, that did not keep their heritage or bloodline from being a son of Jacob.

My family has been in 'America' for 300 years, but I know that I am an Anglo-Saxon from Northern Europe.

The Prophets proclaimed that Ephraim would be as Gentiles sifted to The Nations and that YHWH would bring them back into Covenant with Him. They could never come back into Covenant as a Body by way of the OC as YHWH Divorced Ephraim. But all of the Mosaic Covenantal Promises of Blessings and Curses were directed to The Whole House of Israel. Judah could not come into that New Covenant alone. The Promises were not to Judah alone, but to the 'Two Sticks'. These 'Two Sticks' had to be an identifiable group from each other coming together at the End of Daniels 70th Week..... There was no 'drifting back' to the Temple Cultus by Samaria for 100s of years before the first century. The Jews Needed the Gentiles in order to have the New Covenant Marriage come into conclussion for among the Gentiles were the House of Israel. These are the Mysteries that Paul speaks of. How is it possiable to reestablish the Whole House of Israel? By the coming in of the Gentiles, being RE-graffted in to the tree/root, which is Christ.

[Brother Les]

Ram

Originally Posted by Beck
Lets take the Jews at penetcost they where identifed as Jews that where from every nation under heaven. If these are the fuflillment of Isaiah and Hoesa as the remnant of the children of Israel. How is it that they can be idenified? These were said to be devout men, God fearing men. Indicating that some Jews in other nations was not and didn't follow the laws of God. Those that are called the out cast of Israel by being uncircumciszed.

The Jews who were not following God's law still knew they were Jews, just like secular Jews today. If they had been truly absorbed into the Gentiles, then they wouldn't know they were Jews, and so no one could find them and preach to them.

Ram it seems here that you are using the term 'Jews' as meaning 'All Israel' (this is false to assume this), when it seems that Beck is not and only using 'Jews' as the Southern Tribes or those tied to the Temple Cultus Religion.
You stated in the first posts that the 'House of Israel' was absorbed into ??? the 'Gentiles' and therefore do not 'know' who they were at the time of the First Century. More assuming of 'lost identity' and heritage.

[Brother Les]

Ram
We don't know why Paul had Timothy circumcised. Maybe his understanding was not yet fully developed, or maybe he wanted to be able to avoid offending the Jews. We'll never know because the Bible doesn't tell us. But we do know that Paul explicitly taught against circumcision in Galatians.

We do know why Paul had Timothy circumcised... Because he had a Jewish mother and the Jews were still under The Law of Moses + Christ. This was to show Jewish converts to 'The Sect of The Way' that Paul kept every Jot and Tittle of The Law of Moses as long as Heaven and Earth stood. Paul did NOT have Titus circumcised because Titus was Never under the Law of Moses as He was a Greek ,The Law that Paul say that the Fathers could not even keep and that which was waxing old and ready to vanish away.


Ram
What? Are you saying that the Law of Circumcision is binding on Jews and Jewish Christians?

Are you saying that the First Covenant remains in force, even after the death of the Testator?

Yes Ram, the Law of Circumcision was binding on the Jew and Jewish Christians alike. The Death of The Testator, did not end the First Covenant because the Terms of The Covenant were still binding and as yet (at the time of The Cross) to be fulfilled.
Think about what the Hebrew writer is saying here. The Testament (First) is (Still) of Force after men (those agreeing to the testament) are dead (The Cross) aother wise the Contract (First Testament) would have no Strength at all While The Testator (people who agreed to it) lived. ie. The Terms of The Contract had to be fulfilled even when (because) the Testator of the contract was dead. We call this probate Court to get the Final Judgment at the 'Reading of The Will/Contract. 'we' read into Hebrews 9 that the New Covenant Started At The Cross.... it did not.... Then we 'think' 'Pentecost' 'Started the New Covenant'.... it did not... Pentecost was the 'betrothel'... the presenting of the New covenant Marriage Contract. the new Covenant did not come into 'Consemation' until the Full Judgement of The Old Covenant came about in Curses and The Marriage (Promised OC Blessings, ie. NC). So, yes, eventhough the Testator of the OC was Dead (killed by His wife) the contracts with The Wife were still in full force until the Judgment Date of That contract.

Hebrews 9
15And 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.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Outline of Biblical Usage n m
1) nation, people

a) nation, people

1) usually of non-Hebrew people

2) of descendants of Abraham
3) of Israel
b) of swarm of locusts, other animals (fig.)

n pr m
c) Goyim? = "nations"
Hey there Brother Les,

Why did you emphasize 2 & 3 when 1 is the typical definition.

It is common knowledge that word can apply to descendants of Abraham. It's just not as common as the others, and it certainly is not meant to imply that the NT was really talking about "crypto-Israelites" when it refers to the non-Israelites as "Gentiles."

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

James and Peter spoke of the "12 tribes" as a metonymy for the "people of God." They weren't thinking in strictly literal terms. They wouldn't think to check the ID of their audience. Just like the New Jerusalem had the names of the 12 tribes and the 12 apostles to symbolize the people of God.
In Second Peter, Peter says that he agrees with everything that Paul has written, "even if it is hard for some to understand". He also says that he is writing to the very same people that Paul wrote to. We know that Paul wrote mainly to Gentiles. Peter calls theses People The Disporia, 'Strangers and sojouners abroad', he would never say that about Judah, but opnly Ephraim. James or Peter would not make a sick joke of calling 'Jews', 'the 12 tribes'. The 'Jews' would be insulted as also the 'assimulated' Northern House of Israel. that makes no sence of insulting Jews and Eprhraim if they 'only' meant 'Jews'.... of The Temple cultus (practicing or not...)

I agree that Peter and Paul were in complete agreement. But there are few errors in your comment. First, you appear to be claiming that "Jews" were only of the "tribe of Judah." That was true when the term originated, but it expanded over time and ultimately became synonymous with "Israelite" and "descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" in the first century. (See the dictionary definitions cited below.)

Second, your comment that it would be a "sick joke" to refer to all Jews as the "12 tribes" has no basis in fact. You think this only because you reject that fact that the term "Jew" had become synonymous with "Israelite" in the first century. The Number 12 is clearly and repeatedly used as a symbol for the "people of God" - that's why Christ had 12 disciples, and that's why the names of the 12 disciples and the 12 tribes were both written on the foundation of the New Jerusalem which is a symbol of the people of God.

Third, it is obvious that the "Jews" were scattered in the diaspora because they came "from all nations under heaven" to the Pentecost after Christ's resurrection.




No, I don't see it that way at all. Those "afar off" simply refers to those Jews living a long ways away. Is there anything that would indicate "those afar off" refers to "crypto-Israelites" who do not even know they are Israelites?
You assume that the people of the Disporia do not know that they are not 'Israelites'. Peter in his letters says 'as it is written' and speaking of Sara and Abraham "1 Peter 3: 6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement" Quoting The Prophets in the rejection of the Chief Corner stone. These people knew the OT because their Fathers knew the OT. All of the NC Covenant Promises were Given to the Whole House of Israel. You wanting to push the First Century Jews as a representative of The Whole House does not make it so in any way shape or form. Paul knew that he was from the Tribe of Benjamin, the only thing that made him a 'Jew' was his Religion.

The assumption that the Gentiles were really "crypto-Israelites" is Beck's, not mine. I do not agree with that idea.

The folks Peter wrote to were Jews (Israelites) from all 12 tribes. Simple as that. There is no indication anywhere in the NT that any distinction was being made between "Jews" and "Israelites." The only distinction is between Jews/Israelites and Greeks/Gentiles. That's why this whole theory seems fundamentally erroneous. It does not seem to have any foundation in NT.

And besides that, there is a lot of confusion between the Northern Kingdom called "Israel" (10 tribes) vs. the nation of Israel (12 tribes).



Gal.1:
12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace.

Paul was only a Jew because of Religion that involved covenant, nothing else. The House of Israel was no longer in the Mosaic Covenant, that did not keep their heritage or bloodline from being a son of Jacob.

I agree that the term "Jew" can refer to the Jewish religion, but it also refers to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as an ethnic group. Webster's definition covers all the bases:

Jew \ˈjü\ noun
[Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek Ioudaios, from Hebrew Yĕhūdhī, from Yĕhūdhāh Judah, Jewish kingdom]
(13th century)
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah
b : ISRAELITE
2 : a member of a nation existing in Palestine from the 6th century b.c. to the first century a.d.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation through descent or conversion of the ancient Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism
And here is the entry from Harper's Bible dictionary which agrees with my explanation (note the reference to Jews of the Diaspora):

Jews, a national-ethnic and, subsequently, religious designation for the people of the Judean state or province and their Diaspora. The title became common only after the Babylonian exile (586 b.c.). In the NT it is frequently used to distinguish the descendants of Israel from proselytes, Samaritans, and Gentiles.
And here is the entry from Easton's Bible Dictionary which explicitly agrees with my explanation:
Jew — the name derived from the patriarch Judah, at first given to one belonging to the tribe of Judah or to the separate kingdom of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 25:25; Jer. 32:12; 38:19; 40:11; 41:3), in contradistinction from those belonging to the kingdom of the ten tribes, who were called Israelites.
During the Captivity, and after the Restoration, the name, however, was extended to all the Hebrew nation without distinction (Esther 3:6, 10; Dan. 3:8, 12; Ezra 4:12; 5:1, 5).
Originally this people were called Hebrews (Gen. 39:14; 40:15; Ex. 2:7; 3:18; 5:3; 1 Sam. 4:6, 9, etc.), but after the Exile this name fell into disuse. But Paul was styled a Hebrew (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5).
There are three names used in the New Testament to designate this people,


Jews, as regards their nationality, to distinguish them from Gentiles.
Hebrews, with regard to their language and education, to distinguish them from Hellenists, i.e., Jews who spoke the Greek language.
Israelites, as respects their sacred privileges as the chosen people of God. “To other races we owe the splendid inheritance of modern civilization and secular culture; but the religious education of mankind has been the gift of the Jew alone.”

I could cite a lot of dictionaries and commentaries that agree with my position. Can you site even one that agrees with yours?

Great chatting!

Richard

[Beck]

Here are a few examples:

Shew me thy ways, O Lord;
Teach me thy paths.

They shall eat of the fruit of their own way,
And be filled with their own devices

Saul hath slain his thousands,
And David his ten thousands


Just Google Hebrew Poetic Parallelism and you'll find all the info you could need, and more pages than you could read.

Right, that's what I thought and the form would be synonymous parallelism for Isaiah 11:12.

So when the scripture uses the term 'remnant of Israel' it's more of the children of the tribe of Judah because they would understand their lineage rather that the northern tribes. And this remnant is taken from among the sands of the sea. Is that promise to the house of Judah or all the house of Israel [12 tribes] or to Ephraim as pertaining to Hosea.


I'm thinking that the house of Jacob [Judah and Ephraim] where given this promise to be as the sands of the sea, well Abraham's seed. That from the sands of the sea will God gather the remnant. Now since both houses have been scattered yet God says a remnant shall return.

One Isaiah would be an prophesy of the Day of the Lord for the northern tribes of Israel in which Isaiah also prophesied that a remnant would return of which Isaiah spoke of Assyria. (Isaiah 10:20-24) or should this be spoken of Judah and Babylon?

Richard, you have made some vivid points and I'm trying to work my way through to get the large picture.


Btw, would you read Hosea 2:11 as synonymous parallelism also?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Right, that's what I thought and the form would be synonymous parallelism for Isaiah 11:12.

So when the scripture uses the term 'remnant of Israel' it's more of the children of the tribe of Judah because they would understand their lineage rather that the northern tribes. And this remnant is taken from among the sands of the sea. Is that promise to the house of Judah or all the house of Israel [12 tribes] or to Ephraim as pertaining to Hosea.


I'm thinking that the house of Jacob [Judah and Ephraim] where given this promise to be as the sands of the sea, well Abraham's seed. That from the sands of the sea will God gather the remnant. Now since both houses have been scattered yet God says a remnant shall return.

I am confused by your idea that God would gather the remnant from the sands of the sea. I am not familiar with any translation that uses that phrase. The correct quote is:

Isaiah 10:22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
It seems this idea of "from the sands of the sea" is important to you because you repeated it twice.



One Isaiah would be an prophesy of the Day of the Lord for the northern tribes of Israel in which Isaiah also prophesied that a remnant would return of which Isaiah spoke of Assyria. (Isaiah 10:20-24) or should this be spoken of Judah and Babylon?

Richard, you have made some vivid points and I'm trying to work my way through to get the large picture.

The text speaks of the "remnant of Israel" "remnant of Jacob" and the "escaped of the house of Jacob" - so the meaning is quite ambigous. Jacob being the patriarch of all 12 tribes of Israel, not just the 10 tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel. This seems like the source of a massive amount of confusion.

The "bottom line" for me is that when Paul quoted this he was talking about the remnant of Israel that would believe the Gospel. This group includes Peter, Paul, James, Mary, etc. That is, the "remnant of Israel" is includes all first century Jews who believed when the Messiah came.



Btw, would you read Hosea 2:11 as synonymous parallelism also?

Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

I don't see any "parallelism" here. It seems to be a list of the associated things that would be destroyed by God's judgment.

[Beck]

I am confused by your idea that God would gather the remnant from the sands of the sea. I am not familiar with any translation that uses that phrase. The correct quote is:

Isaiah 10:22 For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.
It seems this idea of "from the sands of the sea" is important to you because you repeated it twice.

Isaiah 10:22 For though thy people Israel [Jacob's children] be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

My question is was Isaiah prophesing concerning the return of Jews from Babylon or the remnant would include all the tribes of Israel. In other words, How is Isaiah using the 'remnant of Israel'? As I noticed that Isaiah mentions Assyria that would be recovered. Isaiah description describes it as a second exodus from Egypt.





The text speaks of the "remnant of Israel" "remnant of Jacob" and the "escaped of the house of Jacob" - so the meaning is quite ambigous. Jacob being the patriarch of all 12 tribes of Israel, not just the 10 tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel. This seems like the source of a massive amount of confusion.

I guess I have a missunderstanding of the remnant. In context the only remnant left from their captivity is those from Babylon.





The "bottom line" for me is that when Paul quoted this he was talking about the remnant of Israel that would believe the Gospel. This group includes Peter, Paul, James, Mary, etc. That is, the "remnant of Israel" is includes all first century Jews who believed when the Messiah came.
Paul mentioned of the remnant [small number] according to election of grace.




Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

I don't see any "parallelism" here. It seems to be a list of the associated things that would be destroyed by God's judgment.

Sorry my friend, I meant chapter 1 and 11. How would you read that verse?

And as concering what Paul spoke about "blindness in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in"(Romans 11:26) How do you understand the part 'until' shall their eyes be open when the time of the Gentiles is full?

Thanks,

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The "bottom line" for me is that when Paul quoted this he was talking about the remnant of Israel that would believe the Gospel. This group includes Peter, Paul, James, Mary, etc. That is, the "remnant of Israel" includes all first century Jews who believed when the Messiah came.
Paul mentioned of the remnant [small number] according to election of grace.

Exactly correct. That "remnant" that began the Church (the body of Christ) was made up from a "small number" of the Israelites living at that time.



Sorry my friend, I meant chapter 1 and 11. How would you read that verse?

OK -
Hosea 1:11 Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.
It sounds like it's talking about "all Israelites" = "children of Judah (2 tribes)" + "children of Israel (10 tribes)" using the traditional division of of "all Israel" into the two kingdoms. But I think it would be an error to try to make a doctrine from this style of language because the NT does not do so.



And as concering what Paul spoke about "blindness in part until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in"(Romans 11:26) How do you understand the part 'until' shall their eyes be open when the time of the Gentiles is full?

Thanks,
Two issues:

First, we need to determine the meaning of "the fullness of the Gentiles" (to pleroma ton ethnon). I haven't thought about this for quite a while, but Rose did some pretty good work in 2008 in our thread called The Fullness of the Gentiles (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=740), and I think her conclusion is essential correct. Paul speaks of a "mystery" of the blindness of Israel in connection with the "fullness of the Gentiles."
Romans 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.
We see a similar connection between the idea of "mystery" and inclusion of the Gentiles in Ephesians:
Ephesians 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Furthermore, this "mystery" is connected with the preaching of the Gospel unto the Gentiles, the nations of the world:
Colossians 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: 27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: 28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
And this, of course, fulfills the prophecy in Habakkuk:
Habakkuk 2:14 For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
And this, of course, connects with the prophecy in the Olivet Discourse:
Matthew 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.
And this, of course, was fulfilled not long before 70 AD:
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:
Thus, the "fullness of the Gentiles" refers to the inclusion of all nations of the Gentiles in the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel through the preaching of it in all the world.

Now to answer your question - no, Paul was not saying that the Jews would have a collective restoration of vision to see and believe the Gospel as a nation "after" the Gospel went out to all the nations (= the fullness of the Gentiles brought in). I do not see that taught anywhere in Scripture. I think it simply means that the blindness would remain all the way up till the fullness came in, and the nation of Israel destroyed. Now there is no "Jwe or Gentile" so there is no nation to be blind or to have vision!

All the best.

[Beck]

Hi Richard,

I've have to take sometime to response and read through that thread and give it some consideration.

Thanks,

[Brother Les]

No responce to my points on post #79?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

We don't know why Paul had Timothy circumcised. Maybe his understanding was not yet fully developed, or maybe he wanted to be able to avoid offending the Jews. We'll never know because the Bible doesn't tell us. But we do know that Paul explicitly taught against circumcision in Galatians.
We do know why Paul had Timothy circumcised... Because he had a Jewish mother and the Jews were still under The Law of Moses + Christ. This was to show Jewish converts to 'The Sect of The Way' that Paul kept every Jot and Tittle of The Law of Moses as long as Heaven and Earth stood. Paul did NOT have Titus circumcised because Titus was Never under the Law of Moses as He was a Greek ,The Law that Paul say that the Fathers could not even keep and that which was waxing old and ready to vanish away.

Hey there Brother Les,

I'm glad you are pursing this topic. I think it would be great to get it cleared up because there is a lot of confusion around this issue. It's very difficult to sort out the relation between Jews, Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians and the Law during the transition period between the crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem.

I do not think your explanation is correct, and it certainly is not found in Scripture. Indeed, Scripture is explicit about the reason Paul had Timothy circumcised:

Acts 16:1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
It was not because he was under the Mosaic Covenant! It was to avoid a problem with the legalistic Jews who might have made an issue about his Jewish heritage. But there is no indication that Timothy ever was a "religious" Jew. On the contrary, if he had been born into a family of practicing Jews, he certainly would have been circumcised on the eighth day!

Furthermore, this is confirmed by Paul's explanation of his behavior in regards to the "Jewish religion":

1 Corinthians 9:19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some.
Paul was perfectly clear. He was not bound in any way by the Mosaic Covenant. He was free in Christ, as were all Jews who believed. This is one of the primary themes of Galatians:

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. I could go on and on with confirming verses. It seems to me that this is a fundamental message of the NT. Therefore, it seems to me that you explanation is impossible. Timothy most definitely was not under obligation to God to adopt the first covenant.




What? Are you saying that the Law of Circumcision is binding on Jews and Jewish Christians?

Are you saying that the First Covenant remains in force, even after the death of the Testator?
Yes Ram, the Law of Circumcision was binding on the Jew and Jewish Christians alike. The Death of The Testator, did not end the First Covenant because the Terms of The Covenant were still binding and as yet (at the time of The Cross) to be fulfilled.

If that were true, why did Paul speak of the "bondage" of the Law under which the unbelieving Jews were still suffering, whereas Christians were free from the Law?

Galatians 4:21 Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman. 23 But the son by the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and the son by the free woman through the promise. 24 This is allegorically speaking: for these women are two covenants [the Old and the New], one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves; she is Hagar. 25 Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother. 27 For it is written, "Rejoice, barren woman who does not bear; Break forth and shout, you who are not in labor; For more are the children of the desolate Than of the one who has a husband." 28 And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30 But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, For the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman.
No Christians, Jew or Gentile, were in bondage to the Mosaic Law.



of[/COLOR] the New covenant Marriage Contract. the new Covenant did not come into 'Consemation' until the Full Judgement of The Old Covenant came about in Curses and The Marriage (Promised OC Blessings, ie. NC). So, yes, eventhough the Testator of the OC was Dead (killed by His wife) the contracts with The Wife were still in full force until the Judgment Date of That contract.

Hebrews 9
15And 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.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
I'm sorry, but your explanation is not lucid to me. I really don't understand what you are getting at.

It seems to me that Hebrews is prettclear on this point:

Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Christ became the "Mediator of the New Covenant" when he died and rose again. That's why first century Christians - whether Jew or Gentile - could receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Again, I think it's great to be pursuing this topic since there is a lot of confusion surrounding it.

Great chatting!

[Brother Les]

Ram
I do not think your explanation is correct, and it certainly is not found in Scripture. Indeed, Scripture is explicit about the reason Paul had Timothy circumcised:
Acts 16:1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

It was not because he was under the Mosaic Covenant! It was to avoid a problem with the legalistic Jews who might have made an issue about his Jewish heritage. But there is no indication that Timothy ever was a "religious" Jew. On the contrary, if he had been born into a family of practicing Jews, he certainly would have been circumcised on the eighth day!

Christianity at this time was still very much a Sect of The Temple Cultus. Timothy was born of a Jewish Mother and there by (as I have seen you write) a 'Jew'. Paul may have thought that it was 'fine' for Timothy to not undergo the circumcision of a Covenant That was Waxing Old and Fading away, but Paul knew that the Mosaic Covenant was still very relevation as long as Heaven and Earth stood that every Jot and Tittle had standing. Christianity at this time was not a stand along 'Religion', it was a section of the Mosaic Cultus and Paul knew this very well. Many have stated that 'Paul' 'Created a NEW Religion', but we know and Paul knew that he did not. Same God, Same People, but transitioning unto the Covenant that was Promised by the Mosaic Marriage Covenant.


Galatians 2 (King James Version)

Galatians 2
1Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
4And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:

5To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

6But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.


Paul and Titus goes to Jerusalem and to the Jerusalem Church. The Church of The Circumcision. Verse #3, Titus, being a Greek was not 'compelled' to be circumcised.[/COLOR] This would seem to mean that if Tutus (as Timothy) had a Jewish Mother, then he would have been Compelled by the Jewish Christian Church in Jerusalem to be Circumcised. To be in the Mosaic Messianic Sect of The Way and to be Jewish you were 'compelled' to follow The Mosaic Law until it was Fulfilled. It was not completely Fulfilled untill The Judgment.



Ram

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Les;29601
Think about what the Hebrew writer is saying here. The Testament (First) is (Still) of Force after men (those agreeing to the testament) are dead (The Cross) aother wise the Contract (First Testament) would have no Strength at all While The Testator (people who agreed to it) lived. ie. The Terms of The Contract had to be fulfilled even when (because) the Testator of the contract was dead. We call this probate Court to get the Final Judgment at the 'Reading of The Will/Contract. 'we' read into Hebrews 9 that the New Covenant Started At The Cross.... it did not.... Then we 'think' 'Pentecost' 'Started the New Covenant'.... it did not... Pentecost was the 'betrothel'... the presenting [COLOR=red
of the New covenant Marriage Contract. the new Covenant did not come into 'Consemation' until the Full Judgement of The Old Covenant came about in Curses and The Marriage (Promised OC Blessings, ie. NC). So, yes, eventhough the Testator of the OC was Dead (killed by His wife) the contracts with The Wife were still in full force until the Judgment Date of That contract.

Hebrews 9
15And 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.

16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. I'm sorry, but your explanation is not lucid to me. I really don't understand what you are getting at.

It seems to me that Hebrews is prettclear on this point:
Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Christ became the "Mediator of the New Covenant" when he died and rose again. That's why first century Christians - whether Jew or Gentile - could receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

Again, I think it's great to be pursuing this topic since there is a lot of confusion surrounding it.

Great chatting!

Part of the OC contract stated the Blessings of a NC at the Judgement of the OC. The Mediation that Christ did was not under the NC Law (contract) but was mediating the OC Marriage Contract and the Blessings (NC) and Curses(damnation) of that contract. YHWH/Jesus made the OC contract with 'Israel', and even though Jesus was dead, the terms of the contract (ending terms) of Blessings and Curses were still to be played out in Judgement. With the testator dying the terms of the OC Judgements came into effect. Jesus Christ did not die For or under the NC. The NC were one of the terms of the OC Contract and His death set in motion the terms of the OC contract.

[Beck]

It was not because he was under the Mosaic Covenant! It was to avoid a problem with the legalistic Jews who might have made an issue about his Jewish heritage. But there is no indication that Timothy ever was a "religious" Jew. On the contrary, if he had been born into a family of practicing Jews, he certainly would have been circumcised on the eighth day!

So to avoid conflict Paul conforms to Jewish customs and the church at Jerusalem would have those Jews that were willing and eager to keep the laws of Moses to do so. As stated before it seem that a rumor was been told that Paul teached to all the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying they ought not circumcise theirchildren, neithter to walk after the customs. Paul denied this...Acts 28:17


It's evident that Paul said that there were nothing to or no difference between circumcision and uncircumcision. One can see how the people of the Jewish nation would been upset and come after Paul as that would have been the reason for the council to have Paul to go through the custom of purification. I believe Paul was saying what he said in 1 Cor.7:17-20 of which concerned Circumcision to abide as one was when he was called. It seem Paul use of circumcision is to point that if a Jew is called let him abide as he is and not try to become a Gentile likewise the Gentile don't try to become a Jew only keep the commandments of God. It then seems that Paul and the church would agree to allow those Jews to keep the laws of Moses and the customs of which one was circumcision of their children, but unto those Gentiles they don't have to be circumcisioned only follow certain laws as babies in Christ unto they grow to understand more of the laws of Moses.


Now it also may have been those Jews that were eager to keep the law of Moses was thoses that were not following the laws for they were among the Gentiles. If we take Paul for his words then he was not telling those Jews to forsake the law and customs. As he would have Timothy an half Jew to become circumcisized so not to bring any undo hardship upon him. Knowing that it means nothing.

[Brother Les]

Ram
I do not think your explanation is correct, and it certainly is not found in Scripture. Indeed, Scripture is explicit about the reason Paul had Timothy circumcised:
Acts 16:1 And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, 2 and he was well spoken of by the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium. 3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

It was not because he was under the Mosaic Covenant! It was to avoid a problem with the legalistic Jews who might have made an issue about his Jewish heritage. But there is no indication that Timothy ever was a "religious" Jew. On the contrary, if he had been born into a family of practicing Jews, he certainly would have been circumcised on the eighth day!


Here is a Sermon by David Curtis on this subject.


http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transcripts/acts/21_15-40.htm

[Beck]

Two issues:

First, we need to determine the meaning of "the fullness of the Gentiles" (to pleroma ton ethnon). I haven't thought about this for quite a while, but Rose did some pretty good work in 2008 in our thread called The Fullness of the Gentiles (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=740), and I think her conclusion is essential correct. Paul speaks of a "mystery" of the blindness of Israel in connection with the "fullness of the Gentiles."

Hi Richard,

I wanted to layout some of my thoughts after reading through some of that thread. What seems to be prophesied in the OT concering the gathering together of the house of Israel which as Isaiah brings to light in passages like chapter 11:12 would not be revealed or understood until the NT as this 'mystery' spoken by Paul of the Gentiles 'ethnos, nations'.

I also think what you mentioned concerning the Hebrew poetic parallelism is a great help in understanding the way many passages of the bible use this type of picture language to reinforce the thought that has been expressed.

Now concerning this 'mystery' which I would agree as to your's and Rose's post that it's reveals the preaching of the Gospel unto the Gentiles 'nations' of the world.

Looking that this from the picture of the Olive Tree which has the roots of Abraham, Issac and Jacob the natural branches and some of theses natural branches were cut off which through God's mercy that He might have mercy on all. That an wild olive tree were graffed in among them that bear the root.

So it seems we have a picture given of a Olive tree with two groups of branches those of the natural branches and those of the wild branches. What maybe confusing as to the OT passage that I used and relating to is what is revealed in the NT that both the natural house of Judah and Israel revealed as these two groups of branches.

On one side of the Olive tree is the house of Judah and on the other is Ephraim together the whole house of Israel. This could be summed up in Ephriam which is now 'ethnos' as nations that have become as the sands of the sea. That's the only way possible that God could do this which I believe to be his plan from the beginning was to be able to include all nations in this Olive tree.



I am trying to live up to the high standards you have set, and to explain the things that Paul wrote to us using the terms that he employed. In this case, I have trouble believing that the "outward Jew" who breaks the Law remains a Jew at all, since Paul said exactly the opposite:

Romans 2:25-29 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? 27 And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law? 28 For he is NOT A JEW who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

Looking at the highlight phrases, I understand Paul to be telling me that lawbreakers who happen to be physically circumcised are identical to uncircumcised lawbreaking Gentiles like myself before I came to the "obedience of the faith" that Brother Paul taught us about in Romans 1. Furthermore, Paul seems to be saying that I myself, though physically uncircumcised, am "a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart." These are the words Paul wrote. They seem very plain to me. How do you understand them?

Richard

I copied and pasted this from that thread becasue I do believe this to be a pivotal in our understanding of how the children of Ephraim as the nations of non-Jews became also the heirs to Christ. In this I looked up some of the usages of Proselytes which had been mentioned before in this thread. Again I copied and pasted from Wikipedia/Proselyte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselyte#cite_note-12)



A righteous proselyte[5] was a Gentile who had converted to Judaism, was bound to all the doctrines and precepts of the Jewish economy, and was considered a full member of the Jewish people. They were to be circumcised and immersed in a mikvah should they wish to eat of the Passover sacrifice. A gate proselyte[6] was a "resident alien" who lived in the Land of Israel and followed some of the customs. They were not required to be circumcised nor to comply with the whole of the Torah. They were bound only to conform to the seven precepts of Noah, the Noahide Laws: do not worship idols, do not blaspheme God's name, do not murder, do not commit immoral sexual acts, do not steal, do not tear the limb from a living animal, and do not fail to establish courts of justice.

The "religious proselytes" spoken of in Early Christian writings were righteous proselytes, as distinguished from gate proselytes. There is some debate however as to whether proselytes known as Godfearers (Phobeomenoi)[7] and/or Worshippers (Sebomenoi)[8] - who were baptized but not circumcised - fit into the righteous or gate category. A dispute over this subject is recorded in the Council of Jerusalem c.50, see also Circumcision in the Bible.
The name proselyte occurs in the New Testament only in Matthew and Acts.[14] The name by which they are commonly designated is that of "devout men", or men "fearing God", or "worshipping God", or "Godfearers".
According to the Books of Chronicles, in the time of Solomon (c.971-931 BCE) there were 153,600 proselytes in the land of Israel[11] and the prophets speak of the time as coming when the proselytes shall share in all the privileges of Israel.[12]

These give way to those non-Jews as Gentiles that were converted over to Judaism of which some had full rights for they were circumcised and some were not and called gate proselytes. In reference to the ending paragraph of Isaiah 2:2 that prophets spoke of a time coming when the proselytes shall share in all the privileges of Israel of which is the Gentiles, nations.


So in summary the Olive tree is an spiritual tree of faith of branches of the natural linage of Judah and the wild branches of Ephraim so that all Israel will be saved. In reviewing the evidence given concering the word 'ethnos' as Nations I believe the OT spoke as to the house of Israel or Ephriam as being gathered back as like unto an second exodus, but in the revelation of the mystery that Paul's reveals to us it's not Ephraim but the many nations that house became.

[Brother Les]

Beck
Now concerning this 'mystery' which I would agree as to your's and Rose's post that it's reveals the preaching of the Gospel unto the Gentiles 'nations' of the world.

Looking that this from the picture of the Olive Tree which has the roots of Abraham, Issac and Jacob the natural branches and some of theses natural branches were cut off which through God's mercy that He might have mercy on all. That an wild olive tree were graffed in among them that bear the root.

So it seems we have a picture given of a Olive tree with two groups of branches those of the natural branches and those of the wild branches. What maybe confusing as to the OT passage that I used and relating to is what is revealed in the NT that both the natural house of Judah and Israel revealed as these two groups of branches.

On one side of the Olive tree is the house of Judah and on the other is Ephraim together the whole house of Israel. This could be summed up in Ephriam which is now 'ethnos' as nations that have become as the sands of the sea. That's the only way possible that God could do this which I believe to be his plan from the beginning was to be able to include all nations in this Olive tree.

We can be specific as this is the Olive Tree. The Root of this Tree is Christ (YHWH). We see in Hosea and also in the parable of the Prodical Son (all parables are about 'Israel') of a removal of some of those of the Whole House (Tabernacle of David) and they became 'Wild'. 'Wild' branches of the Olive Tree that were to be Re-graffted, not into The Tree.... But into The Root of The Tree. The 'Tree' is 'the Body' and Christ is The Head of The Body and The Root of The Tree.... Christ is the all in all, from the Top down and from the Ground up.

[Beck]

We can be specific as this is the Olive Tree. The Root of this Tree is Christ (YHWH). We see in Hosea and also in the parable of the Prodical Son (all parables are about 'Israel') of a removal of some of those of the Whole House (Tabernacle of David) and they became 'Wild'. 'Wild' branches of the Olive Tree that were to be Re-graffted, not into The Tree.... But into The Root of The Tree. The 'Tree' is 'the Body' and Christ is The Head of The Body and The Root of The Tree.... Christ is the all in all, from the Top down and from the Ground up.


In looking at the history of the olive tree, when an olive tree gets very old ( hundreds of years old) and has reached its maximum production, farmers usually cut it down to improve its future growth. Soon, new shoots grow from the old stump, and the tree begins producing olives again.

This aspect of the olive tree provides an image of Isaiah's prophecy, "A shoot will come up from the stump [root] of Jesse; from His roots a Branch will bear fruit" (Isa. 11:1). As a descendant of David, Jesus was the shoot from the stump of Jesse (David's father).

As the Old Testament frequently notes, the olive tree is beautiful (Jer. 11:16, Hosea 14:6). The faithful followers of God are compared to vigorous olive trees, and their children are said to be like the shoots that appear at the tree's roots, guaranteeing its survival.

In Rom. 11:11-24, Paul describes Christians as either natural olive branches (those of Jewish background), or wild olive branches that have been grafted onto Jesus (Gentiles). As branches grafted into Jesus, Christians will only bear fruit if we are attached to him.

Though God cut many Jewish branches down because they rejected Jesus as Messiah, he did not uproot the tree. The shoot of Jesus and the branches of his Gentile followers grew from a Jewish stump. As Christians, we are branches growing from Jewish roots.

[Beck]

Hi, I've been thinking more on this subject and would like to get some thoughts on if the 'ten northern tribes' where absorbed into the Gentile nations where their DNA would be where no one could identity them as from the nothren tribes why is there a mention of descendants from the tribe of Asher?

Luke 2.36: And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher.