identities

[eliyahu]

I have heard different ideas of what some of you believe about our new identity in Jesus through the gospel. I am specifically referring to Ga 3:38 and Col 3:11. Ga 3:28, "There is niether Jew nor Greek, there is niether slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." and Col 3:10b-11, "... according to the image of the One who created him- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."
I take this to mean that our earthly identies (as listed in sample) are not part of the equation of our relatedness to one another once we are found in Christ by faith. The Jew in Christ is not superior nor inferior to Gentiles in Christ. The man is not somehow advantaged over a female when one is in Christ. In other words, any person in Christ is on perfectly equal footing with God along with every other person who has faith in the gospel. We do not look at people "after the flesh." New Covenant faith levels the playing field in that sense. Since there is only one Christ and people of faith are all counted by God as "in" him, we are legally and spiritually "equal." There are not different Christs or gospels for different kinds of people.
This does not eliminate the different identities and consequent roles that each person has in Christ's one body, like male and female. The role of the man and woman is highly respected and recognized as different in Paul's epistles. The same line of logic in these verses applies to Jew and Gentile.
Paul's epistles are all written in this same vain of unity in the body yet retaining a specific role and calling for our genders, freedom or lack thereof, and our Jewishness or Gentile ethnicity.
These verses cannot be used to argue that there is no difference between a Jew or Gentile in Christ any more than arguing that there is no longer any gender distinction once a person is in Christ. That reminds me of the political correctness movement gender neutral language bit! No disrespect indended toward any one.
Christ and the Father are "one" in a similar sense of these verses. Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not the Son, but they are in perfect unity and one in Spiritual fellowship. If you "see" the son than you have "seen" the Father. All believers are received into that fellowship by faith in the gospel. In light of that there is no male or female as divisions like in the temple's quarters, but we are all "one" in Christ. In the one messiah each individual has perfect fellowship with God and thus every other believer.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have heard different ideas of what some of you believe about our new identity in Jesus through the gospel. I am specifically referring to Ga 3:38 and Col 3:11. Ga 3:28, "There is niether Jew nor Greek, there is niether slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." and Col 3:10b-11, "... according to the image of the One who created him- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all."
I take this to mean that our earthly identies (as listed in sample) are not part of the equation of our relatedness to one another once we are found in Christ by faith. The Jew in Christ is not superior nor inferior to Gentiles in Christ. The man is not somehow advantaged over a female when one is in Christ. In other words, any person in Christ is on perfectly equal footing with God along with every other person who has faith in the gospel. We do not look at people "after the flesh." New Covenant faith levels the playing field in that sense. Since there is only one Christ and people of faith are all counted by God as "in" him, we are legally and spiritually "equal." There are not different Christs or gospels for different kinds of people.
This does not eliminate the different identities and consequent roles that each person has in Christ's one body, like male and female. The role of the man and woman is highly respected and recognized as different in Paul's epistles. The same line of logic in these verses applies to Jew and Gentile.
Paul's epistles are all written in this same vain of unity in the body yet retaining a specific role and calling for our genders, freedom or lack thereof, and our Jewishness or Gentile ethnicity.
These verses cannot be used to argue that there is no difference between a Jew or Gentile in Christ any more than arguing that there is no longer any gender distinction once a person is in Christ. That reminds me of the political correctness movement gender neutral language bit! No disrespect indended toward any one.
Christ and the Father are "one" in a similar sense of these verses. Jesus is not the Father and the Father is not the Son, but they are in perfect unity and one in Spiritual fellowship. If you "see" the son than you have "seen" the Father. All believers are received into that fellowship by faith in the gospel. In light of that there is no male or female as divisions like in the temple's quarters, but we are all "one" in Christ. In the one messiah each individual has perfect fellowship with God and thus every other believer.
Hi Elijahu!

That is a very interesting and well thought out response to the assertion that Jewish and Gentile Christians do not have "different roles" to fulfill here on earth. :thumb:

But there is one essential piece of this puzzle still missing. I am well aware of the Scriptures that can be interpreted to imply a continuing difference in leadership and teaching roles for men and woman. Is there anything like that concerning the differences between Jewish and Gentile Christians? What role do Jewish Christians fulfill that is different than Gentile Christians?

Richard

[eliyahu]

What role a Jew plays compared to a Gentile is relative. My point is that these verses preserve the identities of believers as being Jewish or Gentile, male or female, etc. That being the case, there is definitely still a distictiveness that the circumcision or being Jewish brings as opposed to being a Gentile. A Gentile is not is any sense now a Jew once they are found in Christ and vise versa. Yes, we are all "one new man" in Christ. But the reality of that completely looses its purpose when we eliminate the ethnic distinctiveness through the covenant of circumcision Jews have. We are still "Jew" or "Gentile." Our diversity brought into Spiritual unity in Christ is the glory, not losing our identities.
What makes a Jew a Jew is the covenant of circumcision. That is what their ethnicity as being "Jewish" is dictated by. The purpose for this continues today and forever and did not ever "end." What makes a Jew a true Jew "inwardly" is genuine faith, both under the old covenant with Israel and continuing into the new one with Israel. We must recognize that there is a difference between the Jew and Gentile both in the old covenant and forever. I am not saying that this difference is somehow Spiritually advantagous for either group.

[eliyahu]

Hi RichardAs you know i am a premillenial futurist. The role which God had called Israel in the past to play remains in effect. The role which both Jews and Gentiles have in the new covenant is the same calling with the exeption that now, before the millenial reign of Jesus (not nec literally 1,000 yrs of course) and Israel's national salvation being accomplished, the church is to fulfill the calling to be a light to the nations as His united body and not a specific ethnic nation. This is a very deep subject and is not simple. The church is to fulfill God's call in a Spiritual sense only in this age. However, Israel's call is to be fulfilled nationally as a complete ethnic group ruled by King Jesus in the land of Israel in peace for the duration of the millenium. They are to fulfill the call through the power of the Spirit as Jews, as a Jewish nation obeying the Messiah among all other nations. Just as the predominant population of Gentile believers in the church age are to demonstate the glory of Jesus in the gospel to Israel and thus help "provoke Israel to jealousy" now. The ewish nation is to be a national witness as compared to the church's current call to be witnesses in and among all nations which are not submitted to the faith, this present darkness. The Jewish calling as a redeemed nation has a significant role to be fulfilled in the future. God's faithfulness to his promises and the fullness of the glory of his mercy and wrath are yet to be demonstrated through the national death and resurrection of His son Israel in a literal and spiritual sense. Sorry for the run ons here.:pop2:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What role a Jew plays compared to a Gentile is relative. My point is that these verses preserve the identities of believers as being Jewish or Gentile, male or female, etc. That being the case, there is definitely still a distictiveness that the circumcision or being Jewish brings as opposed to being a Gentile.

I agree in the same sense as there is a "distinction" between Spanish and French, but that means nothing in terms of the Gospel.


A Gentile is not is any sense now a Jew once they are found in Christ and vise versa. Yes, we are all "one new man" in Christ. But the reality of that completely looses its purpose when we eliminate the ethnic distinctiveness through the covenant of circumcision Jews have.

Here I vigorously disagree. The Jews do not "have" [present tense] a "covenant of circumcision" with God. The "testator" (Christ) DIED and that fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought in the New. This is why God destroyed the Temple and the Levitical priesthood. Indeed, the author of Hebrews predicted the soon destruction of the entire Old Covenant system when he said it "decayeth and waxeth old" and was "ready to vanish away." That prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD.

Think about it. Do you really believe that God would honor the Old Covenant with a bunch of people that rejected the death of His Son?


We are still "Jew" or "Gentile." Our diversity brought into Spiritual unity in Christ is the glory, not losing our identities.
Yes, we are "Jew" or "Gentile" in the ethnic sense of who our parents were. But we are not "Jew" or "Gentile" in the Biblical sense of having different relationship to God. So from a Biblical point of view, I see no distinction between Jew or Gentile. I don't see how such labels denote anything but a fleshly heritage.


What makes a Jew a Jew is the covenant of circumcision. That is what their ethnicity as being "Jewish" is dictated by. The purpose for this continues today and forever and did not ever "end."

What purpose? Did not the Old Covanant ended with the death of Christ?


What makes a Jew a true Jew "inwardly" is genuine faith, both under the old covenant with Israel and continuing into the new one with Israel. We must recognize that there is a difference between the Jew and Gentile both in the old covenant and forever. I am not saying that this difference is somehow Spiritually advantagous for either group.
I still don't know what the difference is other than mere facts concerning heritage. You said that the Jew who comes to Christ is just another Christian, so what it the point of focussing on the Chinese, Spanish, French, Jewish, or Arminian? I don't get it. But I certainly am glad to try to work it out with you! :thumb:

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi RichardAs you know i am a premillenial futurist.

Yes, and I'm a preterist. And that's one reason I'm really glad you are here to present your view because it challenges my view and such challenges help all of us both move closer to a fuller and truer understanding of God's Word.


The role which God had called Israel in the past to play remains in effect.

I would say they completely fulfilled their role, and I would prove it by the New Testiment that teaches the Jews purpose was to bring forth the Messiah, who now is Savior of the World for everyone. Contrary to the view of a future role in salvation history for ethnic Israel, the New Testament moved from Abraham, to the 12 tribes, and then to the whole world. Going back to ethnic Israel seem utterly senseless from a New Testament perspective which teaches that the Old Covenant was just a shadow of better things to come, that is, Christ. He is the purpose it all, so there is no purpose for an "ethnic Israeli earthly millennium" as far as I can see. It also is not taught anywhere in the Bible to my knowledge. I would very much like to know your best argument for why I should believe in your eschatology.


The role which both Jews and Gentiles have in the new covenant is the same calling with the exeption that now, before the millenial reign of Jesus (not nec literally 1,000 yrs of course) and Israel's national salvation being accomplished, the church is to fulfill the calling to be a light to the nations as His united body and not a specific ethnic nation. This is a very deep subject and is not simple. The church is to fulfill God's call in a Spiritual sense only in this age. However, Israel's call is to be fulfilled nationally as a complete ethnic group ruled by King Jesus in the land of Israel in peace for the duration of the millenium.

I am not aware of anything in the New Testament teaching that would support your claim (highlighted red). As noted above, it seems entirely contrary to the entire thrust of God's Gospel plan for the planet. He is done with "ethnic kingdoms." They served their purupose, now the Gospel and Christ has come. What purpose would be served by an earthly ethnic millennial rule of Christ?


They are to fulfill the call through the power of the Spirit as Jews, as a Jewish nation obeying the Messiah among all other nations. Just as the predominant population of Gentile believers in the church age are to demonstate the glory of Jesus in the gospel to Israel and thus help "provoke Israel to jealousy" now. The ewish nation is to be a national witness as compared to the church's current call to be witnesses in and among all nations which are not submitted to the faith, this present darkness. The Jewish calling as a redeemed nation has a significant role to be fulfilled in the future. God's faithfulness to his promises and the fullness of the glory of his mercy and wrath are yet to be demonstrated through the national death and resurrection of His son Israel in a literal and spiritual sense.
This is my primary disagreement with futurism. That system seems to denigrate the Gospel which is the fulfillment of ALL God's promises in Christ. I do not see how another ethnic kingdom is going to "fulfill" anything not already fulfilled in CHrist.

It would be very interesting if you tried to show me an actual promise that has yet to be fulfilled. In my experience, every promise that folks have shown me obviously was a prophecy of the Church and or Christ. He is the point of all Scripture.


Sorry for the run ons here.:pop2:
No problem there! We got all the harddrive space for thousands of "run on" talkers like you! :lol:

Talk away bro! Speak freely! Let us test the quality of our understanding of God's most excellent Word!

Richard

[eliyahu]

Hi Richard. I've got nothing to do right now so its a great opportunity to chat. I will try the quotes thing.
Think about it. Do you really believe that God would honor the Old Covenant with a bunch of people that rejected the death of His Son?
How do I use the quotation feature?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard. I've got nothing to do right now so its a great opportunity to chat. I will try the quotes thing.
Think about it. Do you really believe that God would honor the Old Covenant with a bunch of people that rejected the death of His Son?
How do I use the quotation feature?
Hi Eliyahu,

Glad you got some time. If you click the "quote" button in the lower right corner of the post you want to reply to, it will put the whole post in quote tags between square brackets, which look like this:


... stuff ...

The opening tag begins with the square bracket. The equals sign shows who is being quoted. The number after the colon puts a link back to the post that was quoted. All that info can be ignored (you can just use the quote tags without any other info).

Then when you post it, it will look like this:

... stuff ...
You can add more brackets anywhere you want to just quote the part you want to respond to.

Let me know if you need more info. You are not the only one who needs to learn to use the quote feature.

Richard

[eliyahu]

hi again, just trying to figure this out.
I agree in the same sense as there is a "distinction" between Spanish and French, but that means nothing in terms of the Gospel.

Here I vigorously disagree. The Jews do not "have" [present tense] a "covenant of circumcision" with God. The "testator" (Christ) DIED and that fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought in the New. This is why God destroyed the Temple and the Levitical priesthood. Indeed, the author of Hebrews predicted the soon destruction of the entire Old Covenant system when he said it "decayeth and waxeth old" and was "ready to vanish away." That prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD.

Think about it. Do you really believe that God would honor the Old Covenant with a bunch of people that rejected the death of His Son?

Yes, we are "Jew" or "Gentile" in the ethnic sense of who our parents were. But we are not "Jew" or "Gentile" in the Biblical sense of having different relationship to God. So from a Biblical point of view, I see no distinction between Jew or Gentile. I don't see how such labels denote anything but a fleshly heritage.

What purpose? Did not the Old Covanant ended with the death of Christ?

I still don't know what the difference is other than mere facts concerning heritage. You said that the Jew who comes to Christ is just another Christian, so what it the point of focussing on the Chinese, Spanish, French, Jewish, or Arminian? I don't get it. But I certainly am glad to try to work it out with you! :thumb:

Richard

[eliyahu]

hi again, just trying to figure this out.
I agree in the same sense as there is a "distinction" between Spanish and French, but that means nothing in terms of the Gospel.

Here I vigorously disagree. The Jews do not "have" [present tense] a "covenant of circumcision" with God. The "testator" (Christ) DIED and that fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought in the New. This is why God destroyed the Temple and the Levitical priesthood. Indeed, the author of Hebrews predicted the soon destruction of the entire Old Covenant system when he said it "decayeth and waxeth old" and was "ready to vanish away." That prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD.

Think about it. Do you really believe that God would honor the Old Covenant with a bunch of people that rejected the death of His Son? Richard

I believe that the old covenant being honored by God was unconditional. AD 70 was a perfect example of God's faithfulness to the old covenant's curses for disobedience. That was because it was still a reflection of God's character and ways. The old cov't curses have been being visited upon Israel increasingly since the crucifixion. Its blessings still remain as applicable well. Obviously, only through new covenant faith and obedience will the blessings fully come upon Israel.

[QUOTE=RAM;5148]Yes, we are "Jew" or "Gentile" in the ethnic sense of who our parents were. But we are not "Jew" or "Gentile" in the Biblical sense of having different relationship to God. So from a Biblical point of view, I see no distinction between Jew or Gentile. I don't see how such labels denote anything but a fleshly heritage.

What purpose? Did not the Old Covanant ended with the death of Christ?

I still don't know what the difference is other than mere facts concerning heritage. You said that the Jew who comes to Christ is just another Christian, so what it the point of focussing on the Chinese, Spanish, French, Jewish, or Arminian? I don't get it. But I certainly am glad to try to work it out with you! :thumb:

[eliyahu]

this is frustrating. I still can't figure out the multiple quotes thing.

[eliyahu]

Did not the old covt end with Christ? Not in the sense that you seem to put it. The old covt was "reformed," it was changed according to Hebrews. The Messiah came and has been explaining everything to us since then, John 4:25. He is the prophet to come who was fortold in Deut 18.
AD 70 was not a full nor permanant "casting off" of Israel along with its temple and priesthood (both are side issues, non-issues as far as I am concerned). That would contradict many scriptures including Jer 31:37. "If... then I would cast off Israel for all that they have done." It is not going to happen due to Israel's sin nor otherwise. God does not change. He did not make a covenant based on a hopelessly faulty human nature in Israel. He based it upon His own faithfulness. Out of His faithfulness to Israel He redeemed those who would believe at the cross and will bring the whole of their survivors one day into this salvific faith and relationship with Jesus. Thus He will give them the fulness of His blessings described in the law then, when as a nation they repent.
But the law did not ever utterly "end" nor ever shall it. The old covt forms of worship (without true knowledge of God in Jesus) have largely passed in ad 70 and will ultimately completely pass in Israel when the whole of them are saved.

[eliyahu]

as for the q about a future millenium. We don't need to look at revelation for the answer. Revelation's millenium, like most everyhting elso in that book, comes from the old covt scriptures.
Isa 24: 21-23
Eze 38:8
Hos 3:4-5
Eze 37: 22, 24-28
Most notably in Isa 24 and Hoseah 3. "Many days without king nor prince, sacrifice... afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD and David..." "after many days the heavenly host will be punished." These "many days are obviously in the context in Revelation the "millenium." These days come after Israel's final judgment and specifically national repentance.
Unlike the preterist position, premillenialism has no need to use the New Testament as a starting point to interpret the old covenant scriptures. I do not believe that preterism is possible to teach if using the old test' as a starting point and as proof texts in context.
Even if we try to alloegorize Revelation 20, one has an impasse when trying to explain that the rest of the dead come to life after the thousand years. The righteous dead were resurrected before the thousand years as a reward. It is specific.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

this is frustrating. I still can't figure out the multiple quotes thing.
It look like you have the basic idea of how to quote. But now lets say you want to break the quote up into two pieces. Suppose I wrote a post that looked like this:

First stuff
Second stuff

When you hit the "quote" button, you would see this:




First stuff
Second stuff



Now suppose you wanted to separate the first and second "stuffs" so you could comment on each. All you need to do is insert an "end quote tag" that looks like [/quote] and a "start quote tag" that looks like [quote] (the only difference is the slash "/" - and you get this:




First stuff

Comment on first stuff


Second stuff

Comments on second stuff

And when you post it, it will look like this:

===================SAMPLE POST ===========


First stuff

Comment on first stuff


Second stuff

Comments on second stuff

Don't hesitate to follow up with any questions. If you don't understand it, I can assure you there are plent of others who could use a little help to and would benefit from your question. Its a lot like eschatology. :lol:

Richard

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Did not the old covt end with Christ? Not in the sense that you seem to put it. The old covt was "reformed," it was changed according to Hebrews.

Humm ... I'm not familiar with any passage that says the New Covenant was a "reformation" of the Old. On the contrary, God contrasted the two covenants, and Hebrews says the Old was soon to pass away and vanish altogether.

Is there anyting in the NT that suggests the Levitical priesthood and bloody sacrifices will be reinstituted sometime in the future?


The Messiah came and has been explaining everything to us since then, John 4:25. He is the prophet to come who was fortold in Deut 18.
AD 70 was not a full nor permanant "casting off" of Israel along with its temple and priesthood (both are side issues, non-issues as far as I am concerned). That would contradict many scriptures including Jer 31:37. "If... then I would cast off Israel for all that they have done."


I'm glad you brought up Jer 31:37. Let's look at it in context [comments added in red square brackets]:
Jeremiah 31:31-37 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [we know from Heb 8 that this is the New Covenant of Christ] 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; [it is contrasted with the Old Covenant. It is "not according to" the Old.] which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [This was fulfilled in the Christian Church, 2 Cor 6:16] 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity [this promise is fulfilled in the Gospel], and I will remember their sin no more. 35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. [This was fulfilled in the Christian Church, called a nation of priests in 1 Peter 2:9, cf Exo 19:5] 37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Who is the seed of Israel? According to the Bible, it is all Christian believers and no one but Christian believers. Therefore, it seems totally obvious that Jer 31:31-37 was a prophecy entirely fulfilled in the Church. I don't see how we can apply verse vss 36-37 to carnal Israel without ripping them out of their context in the midst of the DEFINITIONAL prophecy of the Christian Church. This would be particularly outrageous given the fact that the NT interprets this passage as applying to the Church, and even says in the immediate context that the Old Covenant " decayeth and waxeth old" and "is ready to vanish away."


It is not going to happen due to Israel's sin nor otherwise. God does not change. He did not make a covenant based on a hopelessly faulty human nature in Israel. He based it upon His own faithfulness. Out of His faithfulness to Israel He redeemed those who would believe at the cross and will bring the whole of their survivors one day into this salvific faith and relationship with Jesus.

That is the precise issue that Paul addresses in Romans 9-11. His answer is that the promise were never made to carnal Israel in the first place, but only to the "children of promise." And who are the children of promise? All who believe in God, which now since Christ came means all Christians. Those who reject Christ are "not the children of God" and not counted for seed. (Romans 9:8)


Thus He will give them the fulness of His blessings described in the law then, when as a nation they repent.

God gave them everything He promised them. There is nothing left. All believers are now fellowheirs of all the promises God ever gave to Abraham, for we are "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29) This is the Word of the Lord. It is the absolute core truth of the Gospel. I have found nothing in the NT to contradict such plain teaching.

I very much look forward to digging deep into this issue with you. I pray God gives us both eyes to see, ears to hear, and humble hearts to receive the truth of His Word.

Amen!

Richard


But the law did not ever utterly "end" nor ever shall it. The old covt forms of worship (without true knowledge of God in Jesus) have largely passed in ad 70 and will ultimately completely pass in Israel when the whole of them are saved.[/quote]

[eliyahu]

I still do not understand the multiple quotes thing. I can quote the entire post. Bu tto do more than one escapes me. Do I cut and past the little endquote thing? That doesn't seem to be working. Do I highlight and then do something?

[eliyahu]

Humm ... I'm not familiar with any passage that says the New Covenant was a "reformation" of the Old. On the contrary, God contrasted the two covenants, and Hebrews says the Old was soon to pass away and vanish altogether.
Actually I was referring to Heb 9:10. ""since they relate to only food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation." The type of theings listed here are a rough scetch of what was to be "reformed." Salvation had always been by faith. That was not the "reformation." I am not even referring to Martin Luthor but to the gospel being first preached. I mean that the exteernals of the law (as well as the nature of one's relationship with God) were going to be changed when Messiah came. I believe that is almost implicite in Deut 18:19. If any Jew does not listen to the prophet, he will be cut off from his people. That implies that the prophet will speak works bearing more authority than the written law. That requires the listeners to make a distinct choice between the written law (how they understood it) and the prophet himself. He did not come to eliminate the law in Israel Mat 5:17. He came to demonstrate the fullness of what it is for a man to be a son of God in the full light of God's law. Fulfilling the law meant to correctly interpret the law as a rabbi. THat was the common rabbinical language of that timefor saying that. We can affirm this from ancient rabbinical literature. It menat to "fill" the law to its fullest intention. That meant to be a true son of God.

Is there anyting in the NT that suggests the Levitical priesthood and bloody sacrifices will be reinstituted sometime in the future?
Why only look to the new test'? The answer is not worth even debating about to me. Why does it matter?

[Abigail]

I still do not understand the multiple quotes thing. I can quote the entire post. Bu tto do more than one escapes me. Do I cut and past the little endquote thing? That doesn't seem to be working. Do I highlight and then do something?


Hi eliyahu

To do multiple quotes, wherever you want to snip the original into bits you type [/quote] at the end of the section you want and [QUOTE=blah blah] at the beginning ie each section you want quoted must be started and ended with the bracketed blurb just like the whole original was

[eliyahu]

I have not yet understood the multiple quotes feature. Sorry.

:
Jeremiah 31:31-37 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: [we know from Heb 8 that this is the New Covenant of Christ]
Yes I agree.
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. [This was fulfilled in the Christian Church, 2 Cor 6:16]
To an extent. This was fulfilled in the [I]Jewish people in the church. Theyare the Israel referred to, not Gentiles. The great mystery of the past that is now revealed is that the Gentiles were then "grafted in" along with the believing remnant of Israel.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity [this promise is fulfilled in the Gospel], and I will remember their sin no more. 35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. [This was fulfilled in the Christian Church, called a nation of priests in 1 Peter 2:9, cf Exo 19:5]
Firstly, you cannot use the new covenant scriptures as the vital key to interpret the old covt scriptures out of their context. They must be taken as what they would mean by the original recipients. Israel, both in Jeremiah and the entire old covenant scriptures, always meant "Israel." In this particular context God is addressing the consistent apostacy of "Israel" and what He would do about it- save them.
The language of "priests" used in 1 Peter is applicable to the church. It is borrowed language used to describe us as a people. But it is not a reinterpretaion of the original meaning. The original meaning was that Israel was called to be a nation of priests This was a prophecy that they were to fulfill obviously as a nation. They never did fully carry out that calling as a nation. We, as the church, bear that same priestly nature of relationship with God. We enter Hid presence and carry His revelation. We are intended to teach others the truth and be intercessors for them, just like priests. We can't change the original meaning of the text just because that test is used and applied to another group in the far future. We, as Biblical "priests" are not 30 year old Levite men who have been initiated into the temple sacrifices either. It is the spirit or essence of the priesthood we all bear, not a literal priesthood in the sence that they were whenever the word "priest" was used.
37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

Who is the seed of Israel? According to the Bible, it is all Christian believers and no one but Christian believers. Therefore, it seems totally obvious that Jer 31:31-37 was a prophecy entirely fulfilled in the Church.

We must interprt Jeremiah with Jeremiah and the scriptures written before that. We cannot use new covenant writings not written at the time. The burden of proof is on you to reinterpret "Israel" here. There is no place is the old covenant scriptures (or the new for that matter) that use "Israel" in a manner like you just did.
I don't see how we can apply verse vss 36-37 to carnal Israel without ripping them out of their context in the midst of the DEFINITIONAL prophecy of the Christian Church.
These verses have no referrence to the church.

This would be particularly outrageous given the fact that the NT interprets this passage as applying to the Church,
The NT applies this to the church as it does many things that are directed originally to Israel alone. The NT passages do not forcefully reinterpret those passages but applies them also to the church, incidently as to those who are "grafted in" alsong side the faithful remnant of Israel.

and even says in the immediate context that the Old Covenant " decayeth and waxeth old" and "is ready to vanish away."

That is addressed in Heb 9:9-11. It is specific referrence to the atonement for sins and the external rituals acciated with the atonement at the temple. Read it again. It is very specific. That is the context of what was "decaying and growing old and ready to vanish." It was not the entirety of the old covenant. It was that aspect of the nature of the old covenant. The nature of the new one is "written on their hearts."saved.[/QUOTE][/B]

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I still do not understand the multiple quotes thing. I can quote the entire post. Bu tto do more than one escapes me. Do I cut and past the little endquote thing? That doesn't seem to be working. Do I highlight and then do something?
Good morning Elijahu,

OK - let's take your post as an example. When I hit the quote button, the Reply box opens with this text in it:

==============START SAMPLE POST================



I still do not understand the multiple quotes thing. I can quote the entire post. Bu tto do more than one escapes me. Do I cut and past the little endquote thing? That doesn't seem to be working. Do I highlight and then do something?


==============END SAMPLE POST================

Now let's suppose I want to separate it into two pieces, so I can respond to each. I then copy/paste (or type) the "end quote tag" [/quote] where I want to end the first part of the quote, and then I copy/paste (or type) the "start quote tag" [quote=eliyahu;5168] where I want the quote to start again. And I type my stuff in the middle. Here's how it would look in your edit box:

==============START SAMPLE POST================



I still do not understand the multiple quotes thing. I can quote the entire post.


AND HERE IS SOME STUFF I WRITE BELOW THE FIRST PART



Bu tto do more than one escapes me. Do I cut and past the little endquote thing? That doesn't seem to be working. Do I highlight and then do something?


AND HERE IS SOME STUFF I WRITE BELOW THE SECOND PART


==============END SAMPLE POST================

And here is how it looks when you post it:

==============START SAMPLE POST================


I still do not understand the multiple quotes thing. I can quote the entire post.


AND HERE IS SOME STUFF I WRITE BELOW THE FIRST PART



Bu tto do more than one escapes me. Do I cut and past the little endquote thing? That doesn't seem to be working. Do I highlight and then do something?


AND HERE IS SOME STUFF I WRITE BELOW THE SECOND PART

==============END SAMPLE POST================

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Humm ... I'm not familiar with any passage that says the New Covenant was a "reformation" of the Old. On the contrary, God contrasted the two covenants, and Hebrews says the Old was soon to pass away and vanish altogether.
Actually I was referring to Heb 9:10. ""since they relate to only food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation." The type of theings listed here are a rough scetch of what was to be "reformed." Salvation had always been by faith.

Yes, we agree about faith always having been the condition of salvation. But as for what was "reformed" - I think it refers to the entire covenant, not just those ceremonial regulations. You could enter the Old Covenant by birth. Not so with the New. That is why God "pruned" His Olive Tree, removing all unbelieving Jews and grafting in believing Gentiles.


That was not the "reformation." I am not even referring to Martin Luthor but to the gospel being first preached. I mean that the exteernals of the law (as well as the nature of one's relationship with God) were going to be changed when Messiah came. I believe that is almost implicite in Deut 18:19. If any Jew does not listen to the prophet, he will be cut off from his people. That implies that the prophet will speak works bearing more authority than the written law. That requires the listeners to make a distinct choice between the written law (how they understood it) and the prophet himself.

Yes, but the New Covenant was not made until the death and resurrection of Christ. It was not just his words he spoke while here with us.


He did not come to eliminate the law in Israel Mat 5:17. He came to demonstrate the fullness of what it is for a man to be a son of God in the full light of God's law. Fulfilling the law meant to correctly interpret the law as a rabbi. THat was the common rabbinical language of that timefor saying that. We can affirm this from ancient rabbinical literature. It menat to "fill" the law to its fullest intention. That meant to be a true son of God.


That's a very interesting take. I've never heard anyone suggest that meaning before - Jesus "fulfilled" the Law by correctly interpreting it? Hummm .... I would be interested to know you source on that, and especially if there is anything in the Bible to support it. But my first impression is that both Jesus and Paul taught that a certain kind of activity was the fulfillment of hte Law, namely, LOVE:
Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.



Romans 13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.



Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
As for "that meant to be a true son of God" - are you suggesting that was a phrase used amongst the rabbis for the "really good" interpreters? And that it is what the Bible means when it calls Jesus the "son of God?"

And finally, I agree the law itself was not "eliminated" by the New Covenant, but its binding force on us was. It would be anathema for a Christian to seek to obey the Torah by animal sacrifice, circumcision, building another Temple, setting up a Levitical priesthood, and all that stuff that is in the LAW.




Is there anyting in the NT that suggests the Levitical priesthood and bloody sacrifices will be reinstituted sometime in the future?
Why only look to the new test'? The answer is not worth even debating about to me. Why does it matter?
I would never restrict our discussion just to the NT, but I begin there for clarity. If a major doctrine like what you suggest (a future ethnic rule of Israel) is not once mentioned by Jesus or any of His inspired Apostles, then we have a pretty good reason to doubt the doctrine. And we always must interpret the Old Testament in terms of the LIGHT of the New. This is the a fundamental rule of Christian Biblical Hermeneutics - the NT interprets the OT. This is how it is done in the Bible itself. For example, no one would have known for sure that Isaiah 7:14 applied to Jesus if Matthew had not told us.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

as for the q about a future millenium. We don't need to look at revelation for the answer. Revelation's millenium, like most everyhting elso in that book, comes from the old covt scriptures.
Isa 24: 21-23
Eze 38:8
Hos 3:4-5
Eze 37: 22, 24-28
Most notably in Isa 24 and Hoseah 3. "Many days without king nor prince, sacrifice... afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD and David..." "after many days the heavenly host will be punished." These "many days are obviously in the context in Revelation the "millenium." These days come after Israel's final judgment and specifically national repentance.
Unlike the preterist position, premillenialism has no need to use the New Testament as a starting point to interpret the old covenant scriptures. I do not believe that preterism is possible to teach if using the old test' as a starting point and as proof texts in context.
Even if we try to alloegorize Revelation 20, one has an impasse when trying to explain that the rest of the dead come to life after the thousand years. The righteous dead were resurrected before the thousand years as a reward. It is specific.
Any genuinely Christian understanding of the Bible ALWAYS begins with the testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is "the spirit of prophecy" (Rev 19:10). If your doctrine only stands when the NT is ignored, then your doctrine is not true to the Bible.

The Old and New Testaments enlighten each other and must be read together for a full and true understanding. For example, if I wanted to interpret Jer 31:31 I would begin by reading it in its OT context, but if I ignore the NT I would never know it was fulfilled in the Church, and so I could easily misinterpret it as teaching a future ethnic rule of carnal Israel.

As for Rev 20 - we are not "allegorizing" anything when we receive the Word of God as He intended. As everyone knows, the book of Revelation is largely a vision given by God in which He used SYMBOLS such as the Red Dragon, the woman standing on the moon, and so forth. There are strong reasons to believe that the vision in Rev 20 is also symbolic. Unfortunately, futurists have effectively destroyed the meaning of language by asserting the figures of speech, which are non-literal by definition, are in fact "literal." So rational disussion of the meaning of the symbols has been greatly hampered. And they accuse Christians who receive the symbols in Revelation as God intended as "allegorizing" as if we did something ourselves other than understand the Bible as God intended.

So in answer to your "impasse" - I don't see what you are getting at. The first resurrection probably refers to the salvation event when you were translated into the Kingdom of God's dear Son (Col 1:13) and passed from death to life (John 5:24). The second resurrection would then be the general resurrection. But I'm not certain about these things, and they don't really matter in the sense that God did not give us any other clear and unambigous verses to confirm one interpetation over another, so Rev 20 plays no role in discerning which eschatological system is the one taught in the Bible. And that's all I'm really interested in right now.

Richard

[eliyahu]

Yes, but the New Covenant was not made until the death and resurrection of Christ. It was not just his words he spoke while here with us. Richard

That is true. But for a person to enter into the new covenant one must believe in Jesus and His words. It is all one package. His death ratified/made the new covenant. One would not beleive and follow Jesus and yet reject the new covenant in His blood.


Richard[/QUOTE] That's a very interesting take. I've never heard anyone suggest that meaning before - Jesus "fulfilled" the Law by correctly interpreting it? Hummm .... I would be interested to know you source on that, and especially if there is anything in the Bible to support it. Richard[/QUOTE]

The support is not in the Bible. I will have to dig up my sources on this but I believe that use of terms is found in the talmud at least once. "Destroying the law" was what a rabbi called it when his student incorrected interpreted and applied the Law. "Fulfilling the law" was the opposite.
Jesus' life and teachings, and death and resurrection were the demonstration of Sonship. the law was intended to lead us to Messiah so that we might be adopted as sons. Jesus was the demonstration of sonship and fellowship and union with God, John 1:1,14,17-18 (and not just servanthood, etc.)

But my first impression is that both Jesus and Paul taught that a certain kind of activity was the fulfillment of hte Law, namely, LOVE:
Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [/INDENTRichard
That is true. That is what Jesus was a full demonstration of. Interesting that Jesus and Paul actually quoted the law itself as authority. This was not a new commandment. It became new in that "love" can only be accomplished through the Spirit of Jesus. He is the demonstration of God's love. All love is from him.n He is how we know what love is, 1 John 4.



[INDENT]Galatians 5:14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
As for "that meant to be a true son of God" - are you suggesting that was a phrase used amongst the rabbis for the "really good" interpreters? And that it is what the Bible means when it calls Jesus the "son of God?" Richard

Not to trivialize this... Jesus knew the Father by the Spirit. His view of God was through the law. He was the very fulfillment and goal of the law. He was the person whome the law was describing when it defined God's holiness, Righteous and goodness, Rom 7:12. In His quality of relationship with the Father via the Spirit he was showing us who he was as the faithful servant/son of God (being the only one). That is what a "really good interpreter" means. It means being in your nature and character fully united and dependant upon the Father and in union with the Spirit.


And finally, I agree the law itself was not "eliminated" by the New Covenant, but its binding force on us was. It would be anathema for a Christian to seek to obey the Torah by animal sacrifice, circumcision, building another Temple, setting up a Levitical priesthood, and all that stuff that is in the LAW. Richard
I agree exept for
and all that stuff that is in the LAW. RichardWhat about "love thy neighbor as thyself?" Paul,Jesus, and James upheld the force of this command. "If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the scripture, you shall love you neighbor as yourself," you are doing well." James 2:8. Aren't we to be "holy, righteous and good" Ro 7:12?


I would never restrict our discussion just to the NT, but I begin there for clarity. If a major doctrine like what you suggest (a future ethnic rule of Israel) is not once mentioned by Jesus or any of His inspired Apostles, then we have a pretty good reason to doubt the doctrine. And we always must interpret the Old Testament in terms of the LIGHT of the New. This is the a fundamental rule of Christian Biblical Hermeneutics - the NT interprets the OT. This is how it is done in the Bible itself. For example, no one would have known for sure that Isaiah 7:14 applied to Jesus if Matthew had not told us. Richard
In the book of Acts and the vast majority of the NT we find that the authority of Jesus and the apostles doctrines rested in the OT. The OT was the Binle that the Bereans vindicated Paul's doctrines by. The OT was the authority that Jesus always appealed to. The OT was the source of the doctrines revealed by the SPirit to the apostles and prophets. It was not some unrelated and totally fresh doctrine. It was all rooted in the old covenant scriptures as foundation. Preterism is bound to the NT for vindication. The Bereans and everyone who had only the old covenant scriptures as in the first century would never have become preterists based on the OT scriptures. I submit that preterism interprets the Bible in reverse of the way that God gave it.


Richard[/QUOTE]

[eliyahu]

So in answer to your "impasse" - I don't see what you are getting at. The first resurrection probably refers to the salvation event when you were translated into the Kingdom of God's dear Son (Col 1:13) and passed from death to life (John 5:24). The second resurrection would then be the general resurrection. But I'm not certain about these things, and they don't really matter in the sense that God did not give us any other clear and unambigous verses to confirm one interpetation over another, so Rev 20 plays no role in discerning which eschatological system is the one taught in the Bible. And that's all I'm really interested in right now.

When I read thisI thought of an email to me and part of an article my friend wrote , it is long but tell me what you think.

[As an aside, I'd like to point out the importance of Dn 12:1-2 for our view of the time of Jacob's trouble. This is not the place to show all the reasons, but this passage is the 'nemesis' (threat or obstruction) to many false interpretations. For this cause, it is often spiritualized. However, if this is not a definite reference to the literal resurrection of the literal dead, then where is there a plainer reference to resurrection to be found that is not subject to the same dubious procedure? Through such a method, the plain meaning of language and the author's original intent is effectively vaporized. The authority of scripture is not questioned, but the end is the same unbelief that asks "has God really said?" But all the evidence defies spiritualizing this passage. Notice the similarity of language between Jer 30:7, Dn 12:1, and Mt 24:21. There can be no doubt that the same event is in view. Now observe that the time of the unequaled tribulation ends with the deliverance of Israel in both Jeremiah's and Daniel's prophecy, while in Matthew the tribulation ends with Christ's return (Mt 24:29-30). Do you see that? Now notice that the tribulation that ends in Israel's deliverance, Christ's return, and the resurrection of the righteous happens in connection with the standing up of Michael. It is noteworthy that we see Michael again in Rev 12. Here again, the context is the threshold of the final tribulation. This marks the time that Satan is evicted from heaven and comes down with great rage because he knows his time is short (12:12). This 'short time' of Satan's unrestrained fury is obviously the time of unequaled tribulation, the time of the Antichrist's final 3 ½ year persecution of the saints and of the woman (Dn 7:25; 9:27; 12:11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5). Here again in John's apocalypse, the time of the first resurrection that begins the thousand years is set in relation to the destruction of the Beast (Rev 19:20; 20:4-6), and all of these events terminate in the 'great day of God Almighty' (compare 16:14, 17 with Ezk 39:8). The same order is observed in Dan 7:11-13, 21-27). Paul likewise sees the 'Man of Sin' destroyed by the personal appearing of Christ (2Thes 2:8). So whoever would spiritualize the resurrection in Daniel 12:2 must spiritualize a great deal besides. Typically, the resurrection in Dn 12:2 is spiritualized only because it stands in the way of placing the unparalleled tribulation in 70AD. If the resurrection is literal, then the tribulation is future, and this is fatal to 'preterism'. If the tribulation is past, then the deliverance of Daniel's people' must also be past. This denies the evidence for Israel's future salvation (Ro 11:25-29) in obvious connection with a yet future tribulation.

Of course, unlike replacement theologians, I believe that Paul looked for a future expression of Christ's kingdom on this earth beyond this present age (1Cor 15:28). Though John's revelation of the thousand years would come later into the canon of revealed truth, Paul shared with many a view of the future that required an interim of earthly fulfillment beyond the day of the Lord return of Christ. He would have therefore been keenly aware of our question concerning the distinction between the resurrected and glorified saints and those dwelling in mortal bodies. Though not its primary purpose, Paul's revelation of the rapture answers the problem. But Jesus had already pointed us in this direction. In response to demands concerning the nature of the resurrection, Jesus likens the resurrected redeemed to the angels. This could only mean that the future life of the resurrection is a new kind of existence, free from the constraints of the former (Lk 20:35).
Furthermore, Jesus describes the rewards of the resurrected redeemed in terms of ruling over cities (Lk 19:17). How do glorified saint rule over earthly cities? I suggest it is because we are not visible to those living on the millennial earth, but have been assigned places of rule from heavenly places, invisible to mortal eyes. At that time, we shall judge angles, and if angels, why not entire cities? Regardless of our view of the millennium, it is limited. It is not the final resting place. It has a unique purpose that ends in a final demonstration of human depravity. The ultimate inheritance of every saint is the "heavenly city that has foundations, whose builder and maker is God" (Heb 11:10; Rev 21).
In summary, here are some lines from an earlier response on this topic.
The translated saints of this dispensation, together with the resurrected saints of the OT (Is 26:19; Dn 12:2; Jn 11:24), do not so much inherit the Land of Israel in a physical way, as the enduring city (Heb 11:10) of glorified immortality, the final perfection (1Cor 13:10, 12). At the rapture, the redeemed of this dispensation enter the fullness of the kingdom according to 1Cor 15:50. Those that come to faith after the rapture must wait for their change. Throughout the millennial dispensation, the glorified redeemed will have positions of rule ("five or ten cities") over the millennial earth.

[eliyahu]

I know that this is too much all at once but I have more. My friend also wrote this article as a limited critique of preterism. Its a lot but I would like to hear your comments. Sorry about the length and lets not abandon our previous conversation.

Preterism's Achille's Heel

By Reggie Kelly
"A Short Bible Study Course for the Serious Student Interested in Disputing the Deception of Preterism (Replacement Theology)"


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cornerstone of replacement theology is ‘Preterism,’ - 'the belief that holds that the Tribulation prophecies occurred in the first century [A.D.], and thus are past' (Kenneth Gentry). The hallmark of Preterism is its denial of the futurity of ‘the great tribulation’ (specifically Mt 24:21 ). But compare closely the parallel relationships between Jer 30:7 ; Dn 12:1 and Mt 24:21. It is clear that the very language of Daniel’s prophecy of an ‘unequaled’ tribulation borrows directly from Jeremiah’s prophecy of the same event, [1] as Jesus not only describes the great tribulation by His own word for word reference to Daniel (compare Dn 12:1; Mt 24:21), but explicitly directs His disciples to pay attention to Daniel as the source prophecy for the events that signal His return (Mt 24:15; with Dn 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).

Any comparison of these texts, particularly in their larger contexts (e.g. Dn 7:21-25; 11:36-12:13 with 2 Thes 2:1-8; Rev 11-13 ), displays a clear and inextricable connection between (1) the ‘unequaled’ tribulation ('THE tribulation THE great' Dn 12:1; Mt 24:21 ; Rev 7:14 ), (2) the brief career of Antichrist (Dn 7:25; 9:27; 12:11; Rev 11:2; 13:5 ), and (3) the post-tribulational return of Christ (Mt 24:21-31; 2 Thess 2:1-3, 8 ). This complex of events starts with the ‘abomination of desolation’ (Mt 24:15, 21, 29-31), [2] lasts for ‘approximately’ 3 ½ years (Dn 7:25; 9:27; 12:11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5), [3] and ends in nothing short of (1) Christ’s glorious return (Mt 24:29-30), (2) the gathering of the elect (Mt 24:31; 2 Thes 2:1), (3) the final ‘deliverance’ of Israel ('thy people' Dn 12:1), and (4) the resurrection of the righteous dead (Dn 12:2). [4] To place any of these events in past history is to ignore their manifest proximity to the resurrection (Dan 12:1-2 with Mt 24:21-31). However, preterists of the so-called ‘replacement’ schools of prophetic interpretation (a-millennial, post-millennial, historical) are forced to deny the proximity of these events to a future resurrection.

Scholars agree that Dn 12:2 stands out as the most unambiguous reference to resurrection to be found anywhere in the OT. However, in order to avoid the implications of ‘apocalyptic futurism,’ preterists must interpret this otherwise clear reference to eternal resurrection as a non-literal metaphor standing for national revival (e.g. Ezk 37). [5] But Daniel, who sees a prolonged exile, puts the unequaled tribulation and subsequent resurrection at 'the end'. (7:25-26; 8:17, 19; 9:27; 11:27, 35, 40; 12:1-13). This, however, provides no deterrent at all to preterism's postulate of two distinct ends to two distinct ages, i.e., the 'Jewish age' and the 'church age'. [6] But there is no analogy in Israel ’s history for such an end as these passages so definitely specify. Even if Daniel’s reference to resurrection is interpreted figuratively, it cannot be separated in time from the unequaled tribulation which preterists interpret as literal. Clearly, Daniel’s vision looks beyond any transitory national revival to the ultimate eschatological salvation 'at the end of the days' (12:1-2, 13). According to Daniel, ‘Jacob’s trouble’ ends in the final deliverance of Israel and the resurrection of the righteous (Jer 30:7; Dn 12:1-2) which includes his own resurrection 'at the end of the days' ( 12:13 ).

The exegetical force of this manifest interrelation of events is not lost on a minority of scholars that identify themselves as ‘consistent preterists’ vis-Ã*-vis ‘moderate preterist'. However, rather than admitting a future fulfillment of this indivisible complex of events, ‘consistent preterists’ feel justified in saying that the resurrection described in Daniel 12:2 is already past. This interpretation, however, contradicts the uniform witness of the NT. In virtually every text in the NT where the resurrection is mentioned, it is treated as an inseparable feature of the judgment that accompanies Christ’s return at the still future ‘day of the Lord.’

The time of the day of the Lord is made clear by noting that the stellar darkness that comes 'immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days' (Mt 24:29) is shown in Acts 2:20 to precede and signal ‘the great and notable day of the Lord' (Joel 2:31 ; 3:14 -16). So the darkness is 'AFTER' the tribulation, but 'BEFORE' the day of the Lord, showing that the great tribulation ends with the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord does not include the tribulation, but follows it. Thus the ‘thief-like’ day of the Lord IS the post-tribulational advent of Christ (cf. Mt 24:43; 1 Thes 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10 -12; Rev 16:14-15 ). However, a comparison of the following texts will show that the day of the Lord is consistently treated as marking the point of the Church’s ultimate redemption (1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thes 4:13-5:4; 2 Thes 1:7-10; 2:1-3, 8). These texts show that Christ’s post-tribulational return cannot be separated from the day of the Lord, but neither can the day of the Lord be separated from the future hope of the church. [7]

Only the strength of a powerfully overriding presupposition can account for the decision to make the post-tribulational coming described in the Olivet prophecy and in John’s Apocalypse the exception to all other NT references to Christ’s coming and attendant resurrection. In all other NT texts, the resurrection is united to the ‘blessed hope’ of the Church. It is therefore the more curious that the only passages that are treated as exceptions happen to be those that make explicit or implicit prophetic reference to the Land of Israel . It is suggested that since the NT contains no clear reiteration of the land promise, this feature of ‘the everlasting covenant’ (Ps 105:10-11; Jer 32:40-41 ; Ezk 37:25-26) has been reinterpreted as completely fulfilled in Jesus, and thus the Land no longer retains its former significance.

But NT witness to the abiding prophetic significance of the Land would not be so ‘missing’ if the larger part of NT prophecy was not assigned to the past. Furthermore, it is not the New Testament’s first interest to ‘reiterate’ everything that Jews of the first century naturally understood as irrevocable features of the covenant (Jer 31:35-37; Ezk 36:22, 32; Ro 11:29), deferred only 'UNTIL the times of restoration of all things' (Acts 3:21). Rather, the NT’s emphasis falls on the revelation of things formerly hidden, bound up in the mystery of Christ’s twofold advent. All that related to a future 'restoration of the kingdom to Israel ' was never in question (only ‘the times and seasons’ Acts 1:6; 1 Thes 5:1-2), and required no special reaffirmation; it was self-evident.

The real question to be decided is what the exegetical and historical evidence is for how Jesus, Paul, and John, all apocalyptically oriented Jews of the first century, would have understood the relationship of Daniel’s unequaled tribulation to the resurrection? Both ‘moderate’ and ‘consistent’ preterists insist that Christ returned mystically in apocalyptic judgment 'immediately after the tribulation of those days' (Mt 24:19, 22, 29), understood as the days of the Roman sacking of Jerusalem . But while moderate preterists interpret Daniel’s reference to a post-tribulational resurrection as a non-literal metaphor of past fulfillment, so-called ‘consistent preterists’ go even further to say that living believers were translated and the dead in Christ actually rose around the time of Jerusalem’s fall.

This is the price that ‘consistency’ must pay if the time of unequaled tribulation is to be placed in the past. Such strained interpretations force themselves whenever the time of ‘unequaled tribulation’ is placed in the past, simply because all exegetes are compelled to recognize the inseparable relationship of Daniel’s reference to the resurrection in 12:2 with the ‘unequaled tribulation’ that precedes it in 12:1. Among ‘moderate preterists,’ however, there is usually the belief of a future unsignaled return of Christ and a general resurrection that is not to be identified with the resurrection that Daniel describes as ending the unequaled tribulation (12:1-2). But this is to forfeit consistency, as it divides the indivisible (2 Tim 2:15 ).

[eliyahu]

The manifest interrelation and indivisibility of the events described in the above parallel passages reveals a basic eschatology common to both testaments, viz., a last days’ anti-Christ persecution of the saints followed by Christ’s return as the glorified Son of Man to destroy the Antichrist, and resurrect the righteous. The same eschatological structure stands behind Paul’s ‘little apocalypse’ (2 Thes 2:1-12) and his comprehensive apologetic for the mystery of Israel ’s deferred salvation (Ro 9-11), since both prophetic scenarios assume as their goal the OT day of the Lord. For Paul, the ‘day of the Lord’ marks the great transition point in history that God has appointed to remove Israel ’s partial blindness (Ro 11:25 ) and to re-engraft the ‘natural branches’ into 'their own' olive tree. This is also the time when the 'deliverer comes out of Zion to turn ungodliness away from Jacob' (Ps 14:7; Joel 3:16 ; Isa 59:18-21 ; Ro 11:26-27).

Thus, at the moment of Christ’s return the Antichrist is destroyed (2 Thes 2:8), the Church is raptured (cf. Mt 24:31; 1 Thes 4:13-5:4; 2 Thes 2:1; 1 Cor 15:51-52 ), and a nation is 'born in one day' (Isa 66:8; Ezk 39:22; Zech 3:9 ), as the surviving remnant of Israel in penitent contrition 'shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn' (Zech 12:10 with Mt 23:39; 24:30 ; Rev 1:7).

Until then, the blinded nation ( Israel ) is subject to the 'vengeance of the covenant' (Lev 26:25; Isaiah 10:6 ; Lk 21:22 -23 ). Therefore, whether in or outside the Land, Israel must continue to pass under the rod UNTIL (Lk 21:24 ; Acts 3:21 ; Ro 11:25 -29) final deliverance and new covenant transformation comes at the post-tribulational day of the Lord (Jer 31:31-37; 32:37-42; Ezk 36:26; 39:22-29; Joel 3:21 ). Until ‘that day,’ God’s face remains hidden from the larger nation (see Ezk 39:22-29), as the people of the unfulfilled covenant are delivered over to tribulation and flight (Mt 24:16; Rev 12:6 ), and the land, cities and holy places to desolations (Lev 26:31-32; Isa 10:5-6; 63:18; 64:10-11 ; Ezk 36:35-36; Mt 24:15 ; Lk 21:20 ).

This is the uniform perspective that becomes unmistakable in Jesus’, Paul’s and John’s parallel use of Daniel. For all that the ‘secret’ of NT revelation (Ro 16:25 -26) adds to the glory of God’s eternal purpose, it does nothing to alter the essential framework of OT eschatology. Though so much concerning the ground of the eternal covenant in Christ’s atonement and twofold advent has come to light in the revelation of the mystery, Paul is unable to conceive of the covenant’s final vindication in history apart from the ‘salvation of all Israel’ at the day of the Lord (Jer 31:34; Isa 59:17-21 ; Ro 11:26).

In both testaments, the day of the Lord marks the point of ultimate divine deliverance that divides ‘this present evil age’ ('the times of the Gentiles') from ‘the age to come’ that begins with Christ’s post-tribulational return to destroy the Antichrist (cf. Dn 7:11, 21-24; 11:31-12:1; 2 Thes 2:2-4, 8; Rev 16:13-16; 19:20 ; also Dn 2:44 with Rev 17:12 in light of Acts 1:6 ; 3:21 ). This is the pivotal point where the eschatology of both testaments converge. Even if a case can be made for the occurrence of a double, archetypal, or partial fulfillment of certain of the more ‘apocalyptic’ expressions of NT prophecy, one has still to contend with the NT’s continued treatment of the day of the Lord as a yet future event.

A later spiritual application or enlargement of an OT prophecy does not nullify or preclude a future literal fulfillment that meets all the demands of context and original authorial intention, particularly when the still future ‘day of the Lord’ is its stated time of fulfillment. By what logic, then, can any presume that the future day of the Lord may not bring with it the great turning from ungodliness on the part of the ‘natural branches’ that Paul so clearly confesses in complete agreement with the entire eschatology of the OT? And if this much is true, what part of OT prophecy may not be interpreted literally? Such a wholesale overhaul of ‘Jewish eschatology’ (disdainfully referred to as 'nationalistic' and 'carnal') is based on unjustified presuppositions that must rule out a future post-tribulational coming of the Son of Man to change believers, raise the dead, and deliver Israel [8] all according to the mystery traced by Paul in Ro 9-11.

All that is new to the eschatology of the NT is what has issued out of the mystery of Messiah’s twofold advent ('the mystery of the kingdom'). By this foretold but no less unexpected turn of events, a new tension was created that theologians, borrowing a famous term from Oscar Cullman’s 'Christ and Time,' refer to as 'the already and the not yet.' Theologians of the so-called ‘Heilsgeschichte’ school of NT interpretation also subscribe to a kind of ‘middle-view’ among scholars called ‘inaugurated eschatology.’ It is basically the idea that in Christ, and through the spirit of revelation, ‘the powers of the coming age’ (Heb 6:5) have invaded the present, thus the title of George Ladd’s 'The Presence of the Future.' It means that the decisive eschatological visitation has come in unexpected advance of the day of the Lord, creating a new center, and this new center is the hallmark of all NT eschatology. ‘The already’ is the ‘inaugurated’ kingdom as first-fruits; ‘the not yet’ is the kingdom’s fuller conquest that comes with Christ’s return, the yet awaited ‘day of the Lord.’ The kingdom is both here and coming, as also the powers of the ‘approaching day’ (Heb 10:25 ). This means that the revelation of the mystery does nothing to nullify the necessary ‘not yet’ of all that waits the still future ‘day of the Lord,’ nor does it justify a sweeping 'reinterpretation' of any of the events and ends attained only with its still awaited arrival. An overly ‘realized eschatology’ is as unbiblical as an overly ‘futurized’ eschatology that fails to emphasize the power and presence of the kingdom that has come and is still coming.

Thus, the logic of Preterism is clear: Since the tribulation described in Daniel and the Olivet prophecy is past, and since it is without dispute that Jesus returns in glory ‘immediately after the tribulation,’ it follows that Christ has in some sense already returned. But according to the parallel passage in Daniel, if the tribulation is past, then so is the resurrection (12:1-2). But if the tribulation (depicted as brief, unequaled, and age ending) is not past, it is future; and a future tribulation that has its inception in the Land (Dn 11:41 -45; Mt 24:16 ; Lk 21:24 ; Rev 11:2; 14:20: 16:16 ) carries all kinds of implications for the prophetic future of Israel .

One might even wonder if a latent anti-Semitic triumphalism is not the real attraction of Preterism This is perhaps more possible than we are prepared to conceive. Both scripture and history attest to a deep and powerful natural aversion to God’s electing prerogatives, and this is particularly exposed when it comes to the question of the Jew in history and prophecy. However, given the amazing story of the modern return of the Jews to a revived national existence that seemed to rise out of the ashes of the Holocaust, together with the ominous portents implicit in the ensuing Middle East crisis, it would appear that history is being positioned for the ‘literal’ fulfillment of prophecy.

Indeed, it is hard to see how any objective observer could possibly disregard the prophetic futurism implicit in Zechariah’s amazing prophecy that depicts the final world crisis as centered upon the question of Jerusalem (Zech 12:2). This is precisely what we see on the world stage. Jerusalem is now and will increasingly become ‘a cup of trembling’ destined to sift all nations. The ‘controversy of Zion ’ represents the great issues of covenant and election, and the sovereignty of the divine rule manifest through prophecy (Isa 46:10; Rev 19:10b). Indeed, the entire eschatology of Daniel is built around an age enduring war against 'the holy covenant' ( 11:28 , 30) led by an invisible host of ‘principalities and powers’ ( 4:17 ; 8:11 , 13, 25; 9:25 -26; 10:12 -21; 11:18 , 22, 12:1).

Therefore, according to the eschatology of both testaments, the final provocation of divine wrath comes in response to an ultimate arrogance of the nations against the covenant, particularly as it touches the question of the Jew and the Land (cf. Joel 3:2 ; Ezk 38:16-19; Dn 11:39; Zech 12:2 ; Mt 24:15-16 ). This is the eschatological context in which the gospel was first preached ‘for a witness’ to all nations; it must be so again (Mt 24:14 with Rev 19:10 b). The first disciples lived under the shadow of an imminent, age-ending judgment of Jerusalem . We have come full circle!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Working from Jeremiah’s prophecy of the 70 years (see Dn 9:2), Daniel shows that Israel’s final tribulation ('Jacob’s trouble' Jer 30:7; 'Zion’s travail' Isa 66:8) does not soon follow the end of the exile, as might have been inferred from Jeremiah, but comes only at the end of an extended exile of seventy additional sevens (9:24-27; 12:1-2, 11). Thus, Daniel’s message of an extended probation addresses the problem of delay. The exiles could not have known that the glorious conditions depicted by the former prophets in association with the promised return would be only partially realized. Much more was expected than a 'day of small things' (Ezr 3:12 with Zech 4:10 )

[2] Especially note the connecting and delimiting phrase 'those days' in Mt 24: 19, 22, 29

[3] Because of the mysterious extension of days recorded in Dan 12:11-12 , the precise time of the Lord’s post-tribulational return must remain slightly indefinite, but the ‘approximate’ duration of the Tribulation is most certain.

[4] Compare also 'the great sound of the trumpet' in Mt 24:31 with Paul’s eschatological ‘last trump’ as a resurrection event 1Cor 15:51 -54 (also Rev 10:7; 11:15 ). Note the clearly post-tribulational context of Paul’s OT references to resurrection and the ‘great trumpet’ in connection with the final deliverance (cf. Isa 25:6-8; 26:19-21; 27:13).

[5] Philip Mauro interprets the language of Dn 12:2 to signify nothing more than a national spiritual ‘awakening’ in the form of the contemporary preaching of the gospel by which the believer is ‘spiritually’ raised to everlasting life and the unbeliever sentenced to final judgment ('The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation' 168-171).

[6] Interestingly, both preterisism and pretribulationism share a common tendency to double the major events of eschatology. Such unnatural doubling of events is the result of a forced distinction and division between events that are exegetically indivisible.

[7] Such definite timing of the day of the Lord is equally troublesome for the pretribulational dispensational school of prophetic interpretation, because a principal pillar of this position is the view that Christ’s special pretribulational coming ‘for the Church’ can occur any moment. It cannot therefore be contingent on any preceding events; it is imminent and unsignaled. But in 1 Thes 4:13-5:4 Paul clearly associates the Church’s hope of rapture with its expectation of the day of the Lord, which ‘day’ Paul says 'shall NOT come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed …' (2 Thes 2:1-3). Hence, the day of the Lord is NOT unsignaled, and NOT imminent in the sense of pretribulationism.

[8] By the phrase ‘all Israel shall be saved,’ it is evident that Paul has two aspects of OT promise in mind. First, since Paul is clear that ‘they are not all Israel who are of Israel,’ it is only the elect remnant (Isa 4:2-4; 10:20-23; 11:11-16) that receives the quickening revelation of Christ at the post-tribulational day of the Lord (Zech 12:10; Ro 11:26). This penitent remnant will constitute the beginning of the renewed nation, as the greater part of the nation (‘two thirds’) will die amid the covenant judgments of 'Jacob's trouble' (Ezk 20:38; Amos 9:9-10; Zech 13:8-9). Secondly, the phrase ‘all Israel’ stands for the promise that EVERY member of the renewed nation (Ezk 36:25; Isa 66:8) will know the Lord 'from that day and forward' (Jer 31:34; Ezk 39:22), and so continue 'forever' (Isa 4:2-3; 59:21; 60:21; 66:22; Jer 32:40 et al). Such sudden and radical transformation of the entirety of the surviving remnant stands in remarkable analogy to Paul's own divine arrest on the Damascus Road, and thus guarantees Jewish permanency in the Land, because the perennial cause of exile is permanently obviated.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That is true. But for a person to enter into the new covenant one must believe in Jesus and His words. It is all one package. His death ratified/made the new covenant. One would not beleive and follow Jesus and yet reject the new covenant in His blood.

No problem there.


The support is not in the Bible. I will have to dig up my sources on this but I believe that use of terms is found in the talmud at least once. "Destroying the law" was what a rabbi called it when his student incorrected interpreted and applied the Law. "Fulfilling the law" was the opposite.

I would be interested in the source, but its not necessary because I recognize its plausibility. Your description sounds very "rabbinical." I trust you note how the rabbis tend to "allegorize" Scripture ...


Jesus' life and teachings, and death and resurrection were the demonstration of Sonship. the law was intended to lead us to Messiah so that we might be adopted as sons. Jesus was the demonstration of sonship and fellowship and union with God, John 1:1,14,17-18 (and not just servanthood, etc.)

OK.




But my first impression is that both Jesus and Paul taught that a certain kind of activity was the fulfillment of hte Law, namely, LOVE:[indent]Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

That is true. That is what Jesus was a full demonstration of. Interesting that Jesus and Paul actually quoted the law itself as authority. This was not a new commandment. It became new in that "love" can only be accomplished through the Spirit of Jesus. He is the demonstration of God's love. All love is from him.n He is how we know what love is, 1 John 4.

Yes, I agree that the commandment was not new, and there was not any kind of "break" from the OT as the Word of God! It could and can always be used to establish doctrine. But it must be interepreted correctly, which means in light of the NT.




and all that stuff that is in the LAW.

I agree exept for What about "love thy neighbor as thyself?" Paul,Jesus, and James upheld the force of this command. "If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the scripture, you shall love you neighbor as yourself," you are doing well." James 2:8. Aren't we to be "holy, righteous and good" Ro 7:12?


The relation between Law and the Christian is a very persistant misunderstanding. Paul had dealt with it in Romans 6:
Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

Christians are dead to the Law through Christ. But that doesn't mean that the law ceased to exist, or that the truths in the Law ceased to be true! It just means that Christians do not use the Law in a carnal sense as a guide to "Christian living." We interpret the law spiritually, as God intended Christians to interpret it. The spiritual truths like "love your neighbor" are invariant under the transformation to the New Covenant. Other aspects such as the circumcision law or the sacrificesa and Temple are not invariant, but vanish away in the light of the New Covenant because they were only types and shadows of better things to come.


In the book of Acts and the vast majority of the NT we find that the authority of Jesus and the apostles doctrines rested in the OT. The OT was the Binle that the Bereans vindicated Paul's doctrines by. The OT was the authority that Jesus always appealed to. The OT was the source of the doctrines revealed by the SPirit to the apostles and prophets. It was not some unrelated and totally fresh doctrine. It was all rooted in the old covenant scriptures as foundation.

Yes, I agree with all that, except to say that the Word of the Gospel as preached by Christ and His Apostles was not a "totally fresh doctrine." It was totally fresh and new and wonderful. Yes, it was prophesied in the OT, but it was not the same as the Old Covenant, nor really an "extension" of it either. It was totally "fresh" though prophesied in the Old.


Preterism is bound to the NT for vindication. The Bereans and everyone who had only the old covenant scriptures as in the first century would never have become preterists based on the OT scriptures. I submit that preterism interprets the Bible in reverse of the way that God gave it.

That is a facinating point of view! But I think there is a profound error in it. The fact that the "Bereans" could not appeal to the NT does not mean that the Doctrines defived from the NT are invalid.

Another obvious error is that the Bereans could not have been "preterists" because the events Christ prophesied in the Olivet Discourse, such as the destruction of the Temple, had not happened yet.

There's much we will need to discuss on this point. I look forward to it.

Great chatting Eliyahu,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So in answer to your "impasse" - I don't see what you are getting at. The first resurrection probably refers to the salvation event when you were translated into the Kingdom of God's dear Son (Col 1:13) and passed from death to life (John 5:24). The second resurrection would then be the general resurrection. But I'm not certain about these things, and they don't really matter in the sense that God did not give us any other clear and unambigous verses to confirm one interpetation over another, so Rev 20 plays no role in discerning which eschatological system is the one taught in the Bible. And that's all I'm really interested in right now.

When I read this I thought of an email to me and part of an article my friend wrote , it is long but tell me what you think.

[As an aside, I'd like to point out the importance of Dn 12:1-2 for our view of the time of Jacob's trouble. This is not the place to show all the reasons, but this passage is the 'nemesis' (threat or obstruction) to many false interpretations. For this cause, it is often spiritualized. However, if this is not a definite reference to the literal resurrection of the literal dead, then where is there a plainer reference to resurrection to be found that is not subject to the same dubious procedure? Through such a method, the plain meaning of language and the author's original intent is effectively vaporized. The authority of scripture is not questioned, but the end is the same unbelief that asks "has God really said?" But all the evidence defies spiritualizing this passage.

That paragraph is packed pretty full with assumptions and assertions I do not accept. I think it may be necessary at some point to dig into the meaning of symbols and reality in revelation, but I am more interested in pursuing the other topics right now. I just felt a need to respond to that paragraph and to let you know I disagree.


Notice the similarity of language between Jer 30:7, Dn 12:1, and Mt 24:21. There can be no doubt that the same event is in view.

Correct. They all point to the great tribulation that led to the destruction of the Temple and the entire "Jewish world" in 70 AD.


Now observe that the time of the unequaled tribulation ends with the deliverance of Israel in both Jeremiah's and Daniel's prophecy, while in Matthew the tribulation ends with Christ's return (Mt 24:29-30). Do you see that?

Almost, but not quite. I would use the word "coming" rather than "return." But other than that, yes - those passages agree with the coming of Christ "on clouds" in Judgment on apostate Jerusalem in 70 AD. This is confirmed in Rev 14:14 where the same image of Christ judging from a cloud is given. It is confirmed again in Luke 21:22 that says identifies the destruction of Jerusalem as the "days of vengeance." And the first cerntury fulfillemnt is confirmed again in all the time statements of "this generation" and "soon" and "for the time is at hand" and "at the very doors" and "for we know that it is the last hour" etc., etc., etc.. The proof seems overwhelming to me.


Now notice that the tribulation that ends in Israel's deliverance, Christ's return, and the resurrection of the righteous happens in connection with the standing up of Michael. It is noteworthy that we see Michael again in Rev 12.


Look again at the text of Daniel 12:6-7
Daniel 12:6-7 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
So how do you interpret that? One text says that "Israel" will be "delievered" and the other text says that Israel will be scattered (or shattered). How do you understand that?


To me, the solution is obvious form context. The "Israel" that is redeemed is the Remnant that God saved through the Gospel, as it is written:
Romans 9:27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.

And the "Israel" that was scattered was unbelieving carnal Israel who are neither the "children of God" nor the "children according to promise" as it is it written earlier in the same chapter:
Romans 9:6-8 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called." 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.
It seems to me that God has made everything perfectly clear. The Biblical theology seems brilliant and bright like the noontime sun shining on a cloudless day.


Here again, the context is the threshold of the final tribulation. This marks the time that Satan is evicted from heaven and comes down with great rage because he knows his time is short (12:12).

Exactly. He knew he had to destroy the fledgling church, because if it spread beyond Jerusalem he would never be able to stop it.


This 'short time' of Satan's unrestrained fury is obviously the time of unequaled tribulation, the time of the Antichrist's final 3 ½ year persecution of the saints and of the woman (Dn 7:25; 9:27; 12:11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5).

There is no mention of an "antichrist" in Revelation, and that term is never explicitly used for a wanna-be wourld dictator anywhere in Scripture. On the contrary, the term is explicitly used only to defined those who hold to the false doctrines that 1) Jesus was not messiah, or 2) Jesus did not come in the flesh.

The futurist theory of the "antichrist world dictator" is not derived from Scripture.


Here again in John's apocalypse, the time of the first resurrection that begins the thousand years is set in relation to the destruction of the Beast (Rev 19:20; 20:4-6), and all of these events terminate in the 'great day of God Almighty' (compare 16:14, 17 with Ezk 39:8). The same order is observed in Dan 7:11-13, 21-27). Paul likewise sees the 'Man of Sin' destroyed by the personal appearing of Christ (2Thes 2:8). So whoever would spiritualize the resurrection in Daniel 12:2 must spiritualize a great deal besides.

Not so quick my friend! You have presented an entire system that I do not recognize as derived from a consistent or coherent interpretation of the Bible. But don't get me wrong, I think you have presented your ideas very well, and have given many Scritpures that seem to support them. I am not challenging the quality or integrity of your presentation. I'm just asserting that I believe your entire system will colllapse when close scrutinized.


Typically, the resurrection in Dn 12:2 is spiritualized only because it stands in the way of placing the unparalleled tribulation in 70AD. If the resurrection is literal, then the tribulation is future, and this is fatal to 'preterism'. If the tribulation is past, then the deliverance of Daniel's people' must also be past. This denies the evidence for Israel's future salvation (Ro 11:25-29) in obvious connection with a yet future tribulation.

That is not correct. A "literal" resurrection could have happened in the past without any out physical manifestation. It all depends on what the Bible teaches concerning the resurrection. And what do we know about the resurrection? Simple. Jesus Christ is currently embodied in his literal real resurrection body. Can you see him? No? Why not? Becuase He's in heaven, hanging out with all the resurrected saints in their literal resurrected bodies. Or could be anyway. We don't proof of this either way. And that's why you can't use the resurrection as a "silver bullet" to slay preterism.

But that's obviously the wrong approach anyway! And why? Because preterism is not based on anything having to do with the resurrection. That issue comes up because the Bible associates the resurrection with events that happened in the past.

So there is only one way to "destroy" preterism. You need to prove that the integrated prophetic complex of Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse was not fulfilled in the first century, and you can't do that by appealing to your intepretation of the "resurrection."

Now as for Romans 11:25-29; it says nothing about a future salvation for carnal Israel. That would contradict the consistent NT teaching that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ and that God put away the Old Law forever.

But those issues are like the resurreciton. They can not be used to discern between futurism and preterism because their interpertation depends on your eschatology, so it would be "begging the question" to prove futurism by assuming a futurist understanding of Rom 11.

Preterism is based on a careful reading of the prophecies in Daniel, Revelation, and the Olivet Discourse that proves they were all fulfilled in the first century. You can't destroy that interpretation by appealing to highly disputed ideas based on few Scriptures with little explicit confirmation such as the future of Israel and the precise nature of the resurrection.


Of course, unlike replacement theologians, I believe that Paul looked for a future expression of Christ's kingdom on this earth beyond this present age (1Cor 15:28).

That verse contradicts your thesis of a "millennium" because it is talking about the final state when all things are eternally brought under God.
1 Corinthians 15:28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Does that sound like Paul is expecting some reinstituted earthly carnal ethnic theocratic kingdom on some middle east real estate?


Furthermore, Jesus describes the rewards of the resurrected redeemed in terms of ruling over cities (Lk 19:17). How do glorified saint rule over earthly cities? I suggest it is because we are not visible to those living on the millennial earth, but have been assigned places of rule from heavenly places, invisible to mortal eyes.

Excellent! Then you should have no trouble with a real, literal resurrection that happened in the first century but was not visible to mortal eyes.


In summary, here are some lines from an earlier response on this topic.
The translated saints of this dispensation, together with the resurrected saints of the OT (Is 26:19; Dn 12:2; Jn 11:24), do not so much inherit the Land of Israel in a physical way, as the enduring city (Heb 11:10) of glorified immortality, the final perfection (1Cor 13:10, 12). At the rapture, the redeemed of this dispensation enter the fullness of the kingdom according to 1Cor 15:50. Those that come to faith after the rapture must wait for their change. Throughout the millennial dispensation, the glorified redeemed will have positions of rule ("five or ten cities") over the millennial earth.
OK - some of that could be true. Or not. Or whatever ... it doesn't really matter because it sounds like 95% speculation to me, and can not be definitively proven one way or the other from Scripture.

So lets see if establish the BIBLICAL FOUNDATION that will discern between futurism and preterism. I assert that I already have found it in the integrated prophetic complex of Dan-Rev-OD, and that the proof is extremely powerful because it is based on the plain and ordinary meaning of the text that says it was all going to happen in the first century, and this is confirmed by history.

In closing, I am very happy to say how good it is to be chatting with you! It is obvious that you have really thought about these issues, and you present them well. I look forward to digging ever deeper into God's most excellent Word with you in hopes of exposing the FOUNDATION of true Biblical eschatology.

In Christ our Lord,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I know that this is too much all at once but I have more. My friend also wrote this article as a limited critique of preterism. Its a lot but I would like to hear your comments. Sorry about the length and lets not abandon our previous conversation.

Preterism's Achille's Heel

By Reggie Kelly
"A Short Bible Study Course for the Serious Student Interested in Disputing the Deception of Preterism (Replacement Theology)"


Hey Eliyahu!

Thanks for posting Reggie's article. It attempts to be rigorous and hard hitting, so it deserves a full refutation in the the "Reviews" section of my website. I hope to be able to get to it later today, but I'm heading out soon for movie and a dinner with the family so I can't say more now.

But thanks again - it looks like Reggie Kelly has offered up some very dense grist for for mill.

Richard

[basilfo]

I still do not understand the multiple quotes thing. I can quote the entire post. Bu tto do more than one escapes me. Do I cut and past the little endquote thing? That doesn't seem to be working. Do I highlight and then do something?

Hi eliyahu,
One simple way to use the quote boxes is to click on the quote ballon at the bottom of the post you want to quote from. That brings up a new text box with the entire post. Then all you have to do is type this:




at the beginning of the text you want to box, and this:



at the end of the text you want to box.

experiment and you'll get it.

[eliyahu]

Thanks for reading Reggie's article. I agree with much of it but not all. I disagree with him in that I see 1 Cor 15 as referring to the end of the millenium, or in your case the end of this next-to-final age. I also do not see the millenial reign of the resurrected saints as invisible to the carnal eye. That is seemingly irrelevant speculation.
I cannot go into the breadth of your responces to his article and I would rather we contain our dialogue in here to our posts. It is to overwhelming to tackle His article here.
You did again mention that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. I believe that this teaching was addressed in the earlier part of this thread. The two verses that you might suppport this with do not at all eliminate the distinctiveness of the identity of the Jew or Gentile or their unique roles in the body of Messiah. That would also eliminate God's purpose to make the two groups one new man in the person of the Messiah in Eph 2:13-15.
By the way, Reggie's article and others by him and another highly respected, recently deceased brother named Art Katz are found at benisrael.org under the writings section, articles by Reggie Kelly.

[basilfo]

Hi eliyahu,
I'm at a loss to understand how one can read Jesus' words and the apostles' teaching in the NT and come away with any doctrine that allows for God to draw ANY distinction between people based on anything other than their relationship with Christ. Especially heritage which is what the scribes and Pharisees always tried to rest on.

So when you say 'Jews' (not Jews converted to Christians, but Jews who do not accept Christ as the Messiah) and 'Israel' still have a relevent covenantal role in God's eyes, I cannot find any support for that under the New Covenant.

As Richard quoted earlier, the OC and NC do not run together today.

Heb 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah --
9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new [covenant,"] He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,
24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar --
25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children --
26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written: "Rejoice, O barren, [You] who do not bear! Break forth and shout, You who are not in labor! For the desolate has many more children Than she who has a husband."
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac [was,] are children of promise.
29 But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him [who was born] according to the Spirit, even so [it is] now.
30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

These passages show that the OC does not exist along side the NC. Gal 4:30 says it very clearly, no?

Paul put it pretty clearly in Rom 11. No matter what kind of branch you are - wild or natural, you can be both grafted in or trimmed off the tree. But that is solely based on belief in Christ, not heritage.

[eliyahu]

While I agree with you that trying to rest our salvation or spirituality on our physical heritage is wrong and fruitless, I think it is Biblically commanded honesty to acknowledge and recognize our distinctive personal identity now found in Christ, yet remaining male or female, Jew or Gentile.

This is how those of us who are Gentiles can heed Paul's call in Ehesians 2:11-13. "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh... remember that at that time you were seperate from Messiah, excluded form the commonwealth of israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Messiah Jesus you who were formerly far off have been brought near by the blood of Messiah."

This does not apply to Jews who have faith in Jesus! That is a Gentile specific callin in the NC scriptures.

Also Romans 11:11-13. "...they (Messiah rejecting Jews) did not stumble so as to fall (out of their covenant relationship with God), did they? May it never be! But by their transgression (the crucifixion and rejection of Messiah) salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them (currently Christ rejecting Jews) jealous. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow (by building up the Gentiles in Christ through his ministry to Gentiles) I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them."
Paul saw the role of saved Gentiles as purposeful in relation the the unsaved Jews. He did not call Gentiles "Israel." He clearly distinguished the two didn't he? He was quite passionate about revealing the relationship between Israel and the church. The church is called to "provoke Israel to jealousy" and save them with the gospel. Israel is promised to be completely saved inthe future- Rom 11:26 "and so all Israel shall be saved."
Just read Romans 11 and notice the differences Paul gives to Israel and the church, specifically the Gentile portion of it. Notice the universal calling upon the church to Israel to provoke them to jealousy. This will happen and will be directly associated with the resurrection of the righteous dead- Rom 11:15.

[eliyahu]

As for gal 4:30... The bondwoman represents the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands. It by no means represents "throwing out" the law or the old covenant! That would contradict Mat 5:17 and many other statements. :eek:
Faithless obediance to the law based out of confidence in our flesh (or our Jewishness) is what this is addressing here' "He who was born according to the flesh persecuted he who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also." Are we children of the promise based on our heritage as Jews (if we are indeed Jewish) or is our confidence in the Spirit whether we are Jewish or Gentile in the flesh? That is the issue Paul is addressing. He is not addressing Jewish believers' faith, but Jewish unbelievers claim to salvation based upon their circumcision, or possibly also "judaizers" who demand conversion to Judaism as a must for salvation for any Gentile with faith in Jesus.

[Rose]

Hello Eliyahu :yo:


As for gal 4:30... The bondwoman represents the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands. It by no means represents "throwing out" the law or the old covenant! That would contradict Mat 5:17 and many other statements. :eek:
Faithless obediance to the law based out of confidence in our flesh (or our Jewishness) is what this is addressing here' "He who was born according to the flesh persecuted he who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also." Are we children of the promise based on our heritage as Jews (if we are indeed Jewish) or is our confidence in the Spirit whether we are Jewish or Gentile in the flesh? That is the issue Paul is addressing. He is not addressing Jewish believers' faith, but Jewish unbelievers claim to salvation based upon their circumcision, or possibly also "judaizers" who demand conversion to Judaism as a must for salvation for any Gentile with faith in Jesus.

The one thing to keep in mind concerning what you said about "throwing out the law", is.... there is no "law" left to throw out....it has vanished away. With the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. God made sure that there was NO O.C. left to keep, no one now can keep the O.C.. Christ came as the perfect sacrifice fulfilling the whole O.C. Law- then by His death "the death of the testator" a New Covenant was brought in....the Old one died.....It is No More! The New Covenant came in with Christs resurrection....He is the N.T..

When we take communion, we remember the N.T. in His blood, and keep the New Covenant by keeping Christ.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As for gal 4:30... The bondwoman represents the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands. It by no means represents "throwing out" the law or the old covenant! That would contradict Mat 5:17 and many other statements. :eek:

Does Paul write a single word about "legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands?"

No.

Does Paul repeatedly speak of the CURSE OF THE TORAH as being the reason the Lord Jesus Christ had to die on the Cross?

Yes.

The New Covenant plainly declares that the Old Covenant was about to vanish away entirely.

And how does it contradict Mat 5:17? Jesus said that the Law would not pass UNTIL He fulfilled it, which he did no the Cross. What is left? You know you do not need to go to Temple, eat kosher, sacrifice animals and be circumcised to be justified in the sight of God, so what are you imagining to be the purpose of the Old Covnenant Law in the life of New Covenant believers?


Faithless obediance to the law based out of confidence in our flesh (or our Jewishness) is what this is addressing here' "He who was born according to the flesh persecuted he who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also." Are we children of the promise based on our heritage as Jews (if we are indeed Jewish) or is our confidence in the Spirit whether we are Jewish or Gentile in the flesh? That is the issue Paul is addressing. He is not addressing Jewish believers' faith, but Jewish unbelievers claim to salvation based upon their circumcision, or possibly also "judaizers" who demand conversion to Judaism as a must for salvation for any Gentile with faith in Jesus.


OK - Let's see if your interpretation holds up to a close review of the text. The allegory begins with a question in Gal 4:21:
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Is there anything in this verse that suggests Paul is using the phrase "under the law" to mean "faithless obediance to the law?" No. Paul was talking to Christians and whom he explicitly assumed to have faith earlier in the book when he wrote that they had "received the Spirit" and had "begun by faith":
Galatians 3:1-4 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

Paul began his argument with "do ye not hear the law?" He was speaking about the true and valid demands of God's Torah. He did not begin by asking "do you not hear the legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands by those unbelieving Jews?" That idea is found no where in the text at all. This is confirmed in the next part of Gal 4:22-2:
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. The text says that the TORAH "gendereth" (meaning begets or gives birth to) BONDAGE by its very nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with a "legalisitically perverted" interpretation of the "kinder and gentler" Torah that otherwise wouldn't cause bondage (and death through sin). On the contrary, it is the true and valid understanding of the Torah that brings bondage. This is what Paul meant in vs. 21 when he spoke of being "under the law." He was talking about the Jews faith in Torah as opposed to Christ. That is the whole point of the passage.

Richard

ETA: I am guessing you got this intepretation from some messianic teacher. Could you post the link? I'd like to refute the whole article.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

While I agree with you that trying to rest our salvation or spirituality on our physical heritage is wrong and fruitless, I think it is Biblically commanded honesty to acknowledge and recognize our distinctive personal identity now found in Christ, yet remaining male or female, Jew or Gentile.
I totally agree with the blue text, and totally disagree with the red.


This is how those of us who are Gentiles can heed Paul's call in Ehesians 2:11-13. "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh... remember that at that time you were seperate from Messiah, excluded form the commonwealth of israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Messiah Jesus you who were formerly far off have been brought near by the blood of Messiah."

This does not apply to Jews who have faith in Jesus! That is a Gentile specific callin in the NC scriptures.

I disagree. Both Jewish and Gentile Christians work together as one body to "provke" the unbelieving Jews to jealousy. And the Jew Paul himself said "If by any means I [Paul] may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them" (Romans 11:14). And besides that, there was a time when the natural born Jew Saul of Tarsus was "without Christ" and so by definition not a member of the Christian Church which is called "the commonwealth of Israel" in that passage. Now before you shout "Replacement Theology!!!" you must answer one simple question. Does that verse identify "having Christ" with "the commonwelath of Isreal?" Yes or no? It is easy to find the answer. All who "have Christ" are members of "the commonwealth of Israel" and all who do not have Christ are not members of "the commonwealth of Israel." Therefore every member of the "commonwealth of Israel" is a member of the Church, and every member of the Church is a member of the "commonwealth of Israel." Therefore, the two sets are absolutely identical, having exactly the same members, and we must conclude that the Bible clearly and unambiguously teaches that the Church is the Commonwealth of Israel.


Paul saw the role of saved Gentiles as purposeful in relation the the unsaved Jews. He did not call Gentiles "Israel."

Of couse not! The word "Israel" has many meanings, two of which are 1) the carnal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and 2) the community in covenant with God, which was NEVER composed only of Gentiles, but in the New Testament, it is the body of Christ, the True Israel, composed of Jews and Gentiles.


He clearly distinguished the two didn't he?

Yes, and he also distinguishes two Israels - the carnal unbelievers who are "not the children of God" versus the Christians (Jew or Gentile) who "as Isaac was, are the children of promise." (Gal 4:28)


He was quite passionate about revealing the relationship between Israel and the church. The church is called to "provoke Israel to jealousy" and save them with the gospel. Israel is promised to be completely saved inthe future- Rom 11:26 "and so all Israel shall be saved."

It does not say "in the future." And what do you think "all Israel" means anyway? Is arch-heretic sinner Jeroboam gonna be saved? He was the first king of Israel. I have never heard a convincing futurist interpretation of what "all Israel" means in that verses. Could you help on that point?

Richard

[eliyahu]

Does Paul write a single word about "legalisticly bent perversion of the Law and its commands?"

No.

Yes he does, but not in word for word King-James-style English. He said "... does He who provides you with the Spirit... do it by works of the law (for Jews of that time, this meant being legally observant of Torah like pre-faith Saul as opposed to Torah obedience out of established faith like the righteous remnant before they heard of Jesus)... or faith." Ga 3:5.
And "for by grace you have been saved through faith... not by works (for Jews of that time, this meant being legally observant of Torah like pre-faith Saul as opposed to Torah obedience out of established faith like the righteous remnant before they heard of Jesus)." Eph 2:8-9.


You know you do not need to go to Temple, eat kosher, sacrifice animals and be circumcised to be justified in the sight of God, so what are you imagining to be the purpose of the Old Covnenant Law in the life of New Covenant believers?
The simple answer I believe you may agree on is that the law describes God's holiness, righteousness and goodness. It reflect his justice and mercy. It gives Israel hope for present and future salvation .It promises Israel revelation from the prophet to come (Jesus) which would surpass (yet never contradict) the Torah in authority. The Law is the plumbline of truth to test the prophets, Jesus, the apostles and every other NC minister.

We agree that no one, Jew or Gentile, is commanded to participate in temple sacrifices, etc to be justified. I will assert that no one is commanded not to do any of those things either, except when one was doing it for justification or salvation.
The purpose of the Law in the life of any NC believer is to vindicate and contextualize everything in the NC scriptures, just like many of the NC believers did with the Law in the NC scriptures. Just like Jesus and Paul exorted the people to do (like the noble Bereans).


OK - Let's see if your interpretation holds up to a close review of the text. The allegory begins with a question in Gal 4:21:
Galatians 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Is there anything in this verse that suggests Paul is using the phrase "under the law" to mean "faithless obediance to the law?" No.
I would say there are numerous things in the text that define "under the law" to mean something like "in subjection to a "legal" styled obediance to the commandments not based out of justification by real faith." Before you laugh at the lenth of that statement, consider the following.

Paul was talking to Christians and whom he explicitly assumed to have faith earlier in the book when he wrote that they had "received the Spirit" and had "begun by faith":
Galatians 3:1-4 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
Those people were believers who had "begun" their walk of faith in Jesus "in the Spirit" by faith. Now they are trying to save themselves/be justified by "the flesh." The "flesh" here is their personal ability to please God (in this case by converting to some form of Judaism for justification) totally independant from the Spirit received by faith alone. The flesh cannot please God/redeem/save anyone. By giving themselves over to "legalism" (flesh based, faithless "Torah observance) and not "obedience (to the Spirit and not the empty "letter" of the law) from faith" they were nullifying the grace of God.


24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. The text says that the TORAH "gendereth" (meaning begets or gives birth to) BONDAGE by its very nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with a "legalisitically perverted" interpretation of the "kinder and gentler" Torah that otherwise wouldn't cause bondage (and death through sin). On the contrary, it is the true and valid understanding of the Torah that brings bondage.
I will just say to you (not to Paul) "no." The Torah in and of itself, as God gave it and intended it to be received, brings life! Lev 18:5. One would come to know God through embracing the God of Israel by faith and thus embracing Torah is one was a Jew or had converted. The Torah, as many of the Jewish leadership had made it to be in the first century, had indeed become a "perversion" and legal styled twisting of what the Torah actually originally was. And by the way, one did not necessarily have to participate in the temple sacrifices, eat kosher, etc to be an OC Torah observant Jew. Daniel and all the exiled Jews did not ever go to the temple. Ezekiel was commanded to eat "defiled" food when the Spirit commanded it, etc, etc.
The Torah is not a system of justification for anyone nor was it ever. No Man of God embraced the Law as a means of salvation before Jesus came. That was not taught. In fact, when we read Psalm 119 and many other words of David and the prophets, I cannot see how such a negative portrayal of the law can come from the same Spirit who wrote those words in the Bible. Every Good and perfect gift comes from the Father according to James. Aside from Jesus Himself, one of the greatest gists was the Law! It was not a cursed gift bringing bondage coming from the changless Father of mercy. "bondgage" in Galations is talking about people who were hopelessly trying to save themselves by converting to Torah observance as a means of assuring one's salvation. I mean, Jesus, Paul and the apostles observed Torah their entire lives as far as the record shows! They did not have a problem with following the Law out of NC faith, they did that themselves. They did not call any Gentiles or Jews to begin embracing the Torah as a means to justification or as a "supplement" assuring their Spirituality or salvation.

ETA: I am guessing you got this intepretation from some messianic teacher. Could you post the link? I'd like to refute the whole article. [/QUOTE]

I got some of this in general from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern. I have not been referencing it at all in our converstion though. Please be careful to show love and respect for other teachers, even if they are in some error. After all, no one knows everything perfectly.

[eliyahu]

Israel has three meanings in the NT. It has two in the OT.
One meaning in the NT is the same as the rest of most of the Bible. It means "people who are Jewish." Another meaning is in Ro 9:6. "... Not all are Israel who are descended from Israel." The first "Israel" is addressing the Jews who are "of Faith" and trusting Jesus as salvation. The rest of the Christ rejecting Jews (infered in the verse) were conversly subjecting themselves to "works" of the Law as means of salvation apart from Christ. The second "Israel" in the verse is referring to Abraham's grandson previously known as Jacob.

[kathryn]

Hello Eliyahu...I can't think of anywhere in scripture, where "Israel" means..."people who are Jewish". Could you point out where this is the case?

[eliyahu]

Kat, the anser is that the word Israel means "people who are Jewish" anytime that the word "Israel" is not referring to the individual also known as Jacob, or one time in Romans 9:6. The word "Jacob" is used similarly in referrence to the jewish people. That is all I will say about that question. Happy New Years!:)

[kathryn]

Well Eli...I sure hope that isn't all you have to say , cause I for one, have no idea what you're talking about!

[kathryn]

oops, forgot!..Happy New Year to you too Eliyahoo!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hallo there Eliyahu! :yo:

I'm glad you are digging deep with me on this. After writing the answer below, I realized I don't even know what exactly we are "disputing." You say the Torah was never given for justification. I agree, it was given to condemn us of sin, so that we would find salvation in Christ. That's why we "died to the law" in Him. But somehow it doesn't seem like you hold to this understanding at all. So maybe it would be good if you just briefly explained what you think the "law" has to do with the death of Christ, and why we are not "under the law" and why we have "died to the law" so we could be "married to another." Who is the "other?"

Anyway, here are my answers to your post.




The text says that the TORAH "gendereth" (meaning begets or gives birth to) BONDAGE by its very nature. It has absolutely nothing to do with a "legalisitically perverted" interpretation of the "kinder and gentler" Torah that otherwise wouldn't cause bondage (and death through sin). On the contrary, it is the true and valid understanding of the Torah that brings bondage.

I will just say to you (not to Paul) "no." The Torah in and of itself, as God gave it and intended it to be received, brings life! Lev 18:5.


Its funny you should mention that verse, because Paul quoted it in the context of the passage we are discussing to oppose "Christian Torah keeping." If you want your assertions to stand, you must answer this passage:
Galatians 3:12-13 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
So where exactly does Paul teach your doctrine? Everywhere I look I see that he directly contradicts it. You say that the Torah "brings life" but Paul says "if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Gal 3:21) You say that Paul was teaching against a legalistic perversion of the Law, but Paul himself is carelful to quote the very words in the Law concerning the Law, so it is clear that he was telling us that the Law brings BONDAGE not life.


One would come to know God through embracing the God of Israel by faith and thus embracing Torah is one was a Jew or had converted.

Yes, that was true in the Old Covenant. But that has all been done away with. God does not have a covenant of circumcision with anyone any more. He has comnmanded ALL to come to Him through His Son Jesus Christ, and that's it.


The Torah, as many of the Jewish leadership had made it to be in the first century, had indeed become a "perversion" and legal styled twisting of what the Torah actually originally was.

Yes, that is absolutely true, and that's why Christ condemned the Jewish leaders for their sin. But that's not what Paul was talking about in Galatians. He spoke of the nature of the TORAH itself, that it gives birth to BONDAGE and that we are free only through Faith in Christ.


And by the way, one did not necessarily have to participate in the temple sacrifices, eat kosher, etc to be an OC Torah observant Jew. Daniel and all the exiled Jews did not ever go to the temple. Ezekiel was commanded to eat "defiled" food when the Spirit commanded it, etc, etc.

True enough ... but that was a tempary exile that God said would last exact 70 years. And God didn't say anything about Law and the priesthood ending then as He did in the NT. Likewise, Daniel prophesied that everything would be consumated in 490 years after the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. That was finished in the first century. There are not prophecies of any future restoration of Temple and Law, and we know its all over and done with because Christ is the END OF THE LAW. So it was done, over, finished, completed, and consummated in the first century when the Messiah came and began the Messianic Age, also known as the "Church Age."


The Torah is not a system of justification for anyone nor was it ever. No Man of God embraced the Law as a means of salvation before Jesus came. That was not taught. In fact, when we read Psalm 119 and many other words of David and the prophets, I cannot see how such a negative portrayal of the law can come from the same Spirit who wrote those words in the Bible.

What is the "negative view" of the Law that you are talking about? Is it Paul's reference to the Ten Commandments as the "Minstration of Death" perhaps? Or when he spoke of the CURSE of the TORAH? Indeed, what Spirit could have led him to write such words? Or when he said that if you followed the circumcision command of the Torah you would be "a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."


Every Good and perfect gift comes from the Father according to James. Aside from Jesus Himself, one of the greatest gists was the Law! It was not a cursed gift bringing bondage coming from the changless Father of mercy. "bondgage" in Galations is talking about people who were hopelessly trying to save themselves by converting to Torah observance as a means of assuring one's salvation.


I never said the Law was not a wonderful gift from God, and I never said that the Law was not holy, just and good. But I also speak the truth of Scripture which declares that the TORAH brought BONDAGE. I didn't make this up Eliyahu! This is the plain teaching of Holy Scritpure and it fits perfectly with everything else in Holy Scripture. It seems that you have not understood that bondage in and of itself is not necessarily bad. Children are BOUND when they are little to keep them safe unto adulthood. That's what the Law did. Its all explained in the same book we are discussing:
Galatians 3:21-29 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I believe if you simply received the whole Book of Galatians as God's simple and clear explanation of the relation between Torah and the Christian, everything would suddenly make sense to you. You would understand that the Law serves its purpose in bringing us to faith in Christ, and that it ends there. It is not a "Handbook to Christian Living" though indeed it has the very Wisdom of God in it, that wisdom MUST be understood in light of Christ and the New Covenant or it will kill you. For the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.


I mean, Jesus, Paul and the apostles observed Torah their entire lives as far as the record shows!

As for Jesus observing Torah, that's a big DUH because He was "made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons" (Gal 4:4-5, isn't it amazing how Galatians seems to answer every question on this issue?) But as for Paul, he most definitely DID NOT obey Torah all his life, because he was happy to eat with Gentiles, and he taught directly against the circumcision commandment of the Torah as we know on numerous occasions, especially in Galatians 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." Paul explicitly declared he was not "preaching circumcision" which is the primary commandemnt in the Torah. If he was not teaching circumcision, he was not teaching Torah. Its as simple as that.


They did not have a problem with following the Law out of NC faith, they did that themselves. They did not call any Gentiles or Jews to begin embracing the Torah as a means to justification or as a "supplement" assuring their Spirituality or salvation.
I know of no direct commandment anywhere in the NT that Christians (Jew or Gentile) should obey Torah. Do you?




ETA: I am guessing you got this intepretation from some messianic teacher. Could you post the link? I'd like to refute the whole article.
I got some of this in general from the Jewish New Testament Commentary by David Stern. I have not been referencing it at all in our converstion though. Please be careful to show love and respect for other teachers, even if they are in some error. After all, no one knows everything perfectly.
I agree that none of us, especially myself, knows anything perfectly. I will take you advice to show love as a good reminded. Thanks. But it's also important to note that when I say a doctrine is false I am not judging anyone personally. I'm judging doctrine. Some folks get that mixed up and think its "not nice" to "judge" anything at all, and then they promptly judge me for having an opinion that differs from theirs! Its pretty sad really. Folks seem to have a difficult time focusing on the truth and falsehood of doctrines in light of Scripture.

God bless you as you study His most excellent Word, Eliyahu.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thanks to a link from Eliyahu, I am studying Reggie Kelly articles that talk about the so called "Replacment Theology" and Israel's future role in salvation history, and the idea of Christians keeping Torah. Here is a quote from his article called Some Thoughts on "Keeping the Law" or "Torah Observance" (http://www.benisrael.org/writings/articles_reggiekelly/Some_thoughts_on_keeping_the_law.html). I'm very happy to say that we see eye-to-eye on this contentious issue:


In my view, it is not only inconsistent, but a serious defection for the gentile believer to take on the yoke of Sabbaths, feasts and other physical ordinances of like kind, and thus remove from God the very thing that He has appointed to make His case against Israel’s greatest historic tendency and fatal presumption (Ro 9:32), namely, the lie of humanism, the presumption that in man is anything good. It is only as the Church comes into its appointed eschatological fullness that Israel will be made jealous. Israel will NOT be made jealous by an accommodating zeal for sanctification through Sabbatarian and kosher observance.
Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Kat, the anser is that the word Israel means "people who are Jewish" anytime that the word "Israel" is not referring to the individual also known as Jacob, or one time in Romans 9:6. The word "Jacob" is used similarly in referrence to the jewish people. That is all I will say about that question. Happy New Years!:)
Hey Eliyahu,

Do you recognize this as a prophecy of Jesus?

Matthew 2:15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
Who was the "son" that was called out of Egypt? Israel. To whom was this prophecy applied? Jesus.

Does this mean that Jesus is the "True Israel?" I would say yes. Especially since He is identified as the "seed" (singular) of Abraham.

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Just some more grist for the mill ...

Oh, and HAPPY NEW YEAR to you Eliyahu, and all our friends and brothers and sisters in this forum.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Thanks to a link from Eliyahu, I am studying Reggie Kelly articles that talk about the so called "Replacment Theology" and Israel's future role in salvation history, and the idea of Christians keeping Torah. Here is a quote from his article called Some Thoughts on "Keeping the Law" or "Torah Observance". I'm very happy to say that we see eye-to-eye on this contentious issue:

I read through some of the article, and if I understood it correctly, he's against the "Replacement" theology. That is to say, he does not believe the Church is Israel replacement, but Israel's fulfillment through God.

That is why I object harshly to John Hagaee and others like him who seem to believe that the Church and Israel are two separate kingdoms. They are not, in fact, two separate kingdoms. Israel and the Church are one and the same, but there is a false Israel, just as there is a true Israel. The Israel of God has always been those who are faithful to His commands. Then there's the Israel of the flesh, those who claim to be Jews, but are liars, as Revelation states, "A temple of Satan". Flesh has nothing to do with being Israel, for as Paul clearly teaches, only the children of Promise are considered Israel, and of the seed of blessing promised to Abraham, that he (Through the promise) would become the father of "many" nations, making them into one nation, under God.

Did I read his article correctly brother Richard?

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I read through some of the article, and if I understood it correctly, he's against the "Replacement" theology. That is to say, he does not believe the Church is Israel replacement, but Israel's fulfillment through God.

Yes, he is one of the "confused" and "confusing" when it comes to the doctrine of "Replacement Theology." I didn't mean my comment to be a "blanket endorsement" by any means. But I found one comment that I thought was valid and useful to help people see their way clear of the false doctrine of Christians "keeping Torah."


That is why I object harshly to John Hagaee and others like him who seem to believe that the Church and Israel are two separate kingdoms. They are not, in fact, two separate kingdoms. Israel and the Church are one and the same, but there is a false Israel, just as there is a true Israel. The Israel of God has always been those who are faithful to His commands.

I could not agree more! You are absolutely correct on this point. :thumb:


Then there's the Israel of the flesh, those who claim to be Jews, but are liars, as Revelation states, "A temple of Satan". Flesh has nothing to do with being Israel, for as Paul clearly teaches, only the children of Promise are considered Israel, and of the seed of blessing promised to Abraham, that he (Through the promise) would become the father of "many" nations, making them into one nation, under God.

Did I read his article correctly brother Richard?

Joe
Yes my brother, you read it correctly. I disagree with Reggie Kelly on his futurism, his belief in a separation between "Israel" and the "Church" and his opposition to the pseudo-doctrine of "replacement theology."

Richard

[eliyahu]

I really want to respectfully respond to all of your words but there is just too much to reasonably take on. I can respond to some though.


After writing the answer below, I realized I don't even know what exactly we are "disputing." You say the Torah was never given for justification. I agree, it was given to condemn us of sin, so that we would find salvation in Christ.
While that reason for the law being given is true, more consciousness of our sin and sinful nature. That is not the sole reason nor the full extent of the purpose of the law.

That's why we "died to the law" in Him. But somehow it doesn't seem like you hold to this understanding at all. So maybe it would be good if you just briefly explained what you think the "law" has to do with the death of Christ, and why we are not "under the law" and why we have "died to the law" so we could be "married to another." Who is the "other?"

Our having "died to the law" through our identification with Jesus' death means that the "curse"s for disobedience described in the very law itself have been fully satisfied and removed from a NC believer individually. The law in itself is not a curse. In fact the law promises great blessings for Jews who would faithfully embrace it (before Jesus came). The law defines the way to being blessed or cursed for the Jews.

In Galations where it talks about "dying to the law" it is in specific reference to the portion of the law dealing with a woman being married. When her husband with no living brothers dies, she becomes free from the part of the Torah about marraige to a man. Now she is legally "free" before God to marry another if she wants. Paul employed this example to prove his point. His point was that the dimensions of the law that were were effectively constrictive and/or Spiritually incomplete/insufficient to Jews (like the kosher diet, temple ceremonial worship, the curses for disobediance, the need for the day of atonement as an anual reminder of their Torah-revealed sin, the seperatedness from Gentiles, etc) were satisfied at the cross and now are no longer required of or imposed upon Israel. Those type of aspects of the Torah are what were "reformed" in Hebrews 9:10. Those external requirements are no longer required of Israel.
A true Israelite of the OC in heart would obediently embrace all of the external regulations of the Torah as a Spiritual act of worship based out of faith. In the externals of the Torah there are many forshadowings of the reality later to be found in the Messiah. The God worshiped through the Torah's format (before Jesus came) was revealed in that system in a limited but sufficient extent for faith based salvation and a limited but true relationship and experience with God. Before Torah there was still faith based salvation (Abraham, Noah, Enoch, etc) but the Torah was an even further and more glorious (it came with Glory, 2 Cor 3:7) revelation of God and opportunity for Israel to be uniquely closer to Him. It was the next stage in the progressive inbreaking of God's kingdom on the earth.
The "other" whome we have been "married" to is Jesus, as being the new covenant in his very person. The law is functionally like a human marraige covenant. It is conditional and limited. The part of the Torah that reveals man's sin and sinful nature and God's major issue with such. This dilema is what a NC believer has "died to." The external forms of worship imposed "until the time of reformation" Heb 9:10, in the context, were what was "reformed." The parts of the Torah about the day of atonement as "an anual reminder of sins (He 9:1-7)" was the central aspect transformed at the cross. It also encompassed all the external ceremonial commands like "gifts and sacrifices... food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation." Heb 9:9-10.
What we believers are now "married to" is desribed in Hebrews 9:15 as follows. "For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant (or even "will"), so that, SINCE A DEATH HAS TAKEN PLACE FOR (specifically) THE REDEMPTION OF THE TRANSGRESSIONS THAT WERE COMMITED UNDER THE FIRST COVENANT , those who have been called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." This promise always stood in the shadow of the part of the law that revealed all mankind's issues of sin and our sinful nature. There needed to be a once and for all forgiveness (promised in Jer 31's New Covenant) and a dealing with man's sinful nature.
When I think about myself "obeying the Law" I think of the following verse. Hebrews 8:6 (my expanded translation ammended from the Jewish New Testament's.) "But now the ministry Jesus has been given to do as our great high priest is superior to the Levite priesthood's ministry, just as the covenant that He mediates is better than the old one. FOR this covenant has been given as Torah on the basis of better promises. Indeed, if the first covenant had not GiVEN GROUND for God finding fault, there would not have been a need for a second one which does not give grounds for God to find fault." Sincethe externals of the ceremonial parts of Jewish worship are no longer "imposed" on Israel, and the part of the OC Law that deals with sin are fully satisfied and no longer condemning a NC believer, then the holiness, righteousness and goodness of God described in the Torah (and thusly then demonstrated through Jesus) are required of all Israel and are met in all NC believers. God demands New Covenant Torah/Law obedience of Israel and indeed, now all of mankind, Acts 17:30.
To believe in and folow Jesus through the power of the Spirit is to fulfill the law today. NC faith is how one "establishes/fulfills/perfectly is keeps the law" Rom 3:31. To embrace real faith in the God of Israel and His Son is to perfectly "fulfill" the law. The law is now "reformed" from being a strictly Jewish ceremonial, temple-cult form of worship absent of complete and Spiritual transformation inthe inner man. The "renewed" law as now given via the New covenant and "engraved upon our hearts" does not require those kinds of external forms of worship of anyone. The sacrifial system is utterly fulfilled and the need for such satisfied at the cross. The old covt's "conciousness of sin" being addressed without an absolute solution offered is now removed by Jesus' atoning blood of the new covenant. Faith in Messiah's new covenant blood makes all beleiver's equally just as "lawfully clean" as Jesus Himself. That unites us all as one in him. To love Him is to become fully "clean" and "lawful." That is what it is to be reborn and living the Spiritual life in eternal fellowship with God. That is New Covenant "law keeping" in Galations 6:2, etc.


Yes, that was true in the Old Covenant. But that has all been done away with. God does not have a covenant of circumcision with anyone any more. He has comnmanded ALL to come to Him through His Son Jesus Christ, and that's it. [QUOTE=RAM;5214]
The now required circumcision is all in the heart for every NC believer.The heart and the body's cricumcision was required of OC Jews. Coming to God through Jesus is "curcimcising your heart."


[QUOTE=RAM;5214] True enough ... but that was a tempary exile that God said would last exact 70 years. And God didn't say anything about Law and the priesthood ending then as He did in the NT. Likewise, Daniel prophesied that everything would be consumated in 490 years after the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem. That was finished in the first century.
My only point was just that the law was not this impossibly demanding and burdensome yolk of insecurity as it later was made out to be by the Pharisee party and the Judiazers.

There are not prophecies of any future restoration of Temple and Law, and we know its all over and done with because Christ is the END OF THE LAW. So it was done, over, finished, completed, and consummated in the first century when the Messiah came and began the Messianic Age, also known as the "Church Age."
The "end of the Law" in Romans 10:4 is more accurately translated "goal (Greek telos)of the law." If an OC Jew before Christ "pursued the law" in faith (9:32) he was saved proavtively by Jesus' asured future sacrifice, Rom 3:25. If one were to have embraced the law by faith and then met Jesus, he would recognize and follow God the Son out of personal revelation from his OC relationship with the Father. Jesus said, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." John 6:45. He was the "goal" of the law, justification in Jesus' name. All the types and shadows were of Him. The law was intended to direct people into life (fellowship with God) and that life is in fellowship with Jesus Himself by the Spirit, even in a limited proactive sense.
[QUOTE=RAM;5214] But as for Paul, he most definitely DID NOT obey Torah all his life, because he was happy to eat with Gentiles, and he taught directly against the circumcision commandment of the Torah as we know on numerous occasions, especially in Galatians 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." Paul explicitly declared he was not "preaching circumcision" which is the primary commandemnt in the Torah. If he was not teaching circumcision, he was not teaching Torah. Its as simple as that. [QUOTE=RAM;5214]
the Bible does not say that Paul ate unclean food with Gentiles, only that he ate with them. That was breaking an extra-biblical oral tradition of the Pharisees. Paul did not break the law, Acts 21:24. "Preaching circumcision" was to preach conversion to old covenant Judaism. Paul was against that as it contradicted salvation through Jesus by faith alone. Paul also said "Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised (as if abandining Judaism gets him closer to salvation)... Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God." 1 Cor 7:18-19. Paul was, however, preaching the circumcision of the heart- just like the old covenant prophets but now in full view of the gospel of the kingdom!

[QUOTE=RAM;5214] I know of no direct commandment anywhere in the NT that Christians (Jew or Gentile) should obey Torah. Do you? [QUOTE=RAM;5214]
For starters, Mat 5:19b, James 1:25, 2:8...

I was a little unsettled when you said "some Messianic teacher." It sounded like there was lack of love and respect. I understand being frustrated at times with some of the Messianic teachers. I do not enjoy when people try to condescendingly attempt to convert me to a legalistic and religious Messianic Gentile faith. I personally practice certain Jewish holidays out of Spiritual freedom. But anything of that sort is not somehow more Spiritual than a Christian who does not do any such thing. It is a matter of the freedom of choice and Spiritual maturity. Maturity edifies others and reveals God to them, it does not demand conformity to a system. Maturity is the freedom of God's Spirit. Not rules of dos and don'ts, even "do or don't celebrate anything that the Jews celebrate!" Where the Spirit is there is freedom.
Happy new year!!!!!!
P S pleas try to make the next post way smaller. this one is way to much. Thanks and bless you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Eliyahu, and HNY! :yo:

I really want to respectfully respond to all of your words but there is just too much to reasonably take on. I can respond to some though.
No problem there. These kinds of conversations often expand into huge posts that are impossible to answer. It's usually best to try to limit the conversation to one point at a time and focus on that, but it's usually impossible because everything is related to everything else ... and most of us are bloviators by nature, it would seem .... :lol:


While that reason for the law being given is true, more consciousness of our sin and sinful nature. That is not the sole reason nor the full extent of the purpose of the law.
I agree totally! I never would say that the law was given "only" because of sin. It contains the very Wisdom of Almighty God, and is part of His eternal Word. But note the word "part" - if it is interpeted without the full light of the Gospel, it will be completely misleading.


Our having "died to the law" through our identification with Jesus' death means that the "curse"s for disobedience described in the very law itself have been fully satisfied and removed from a NC believer individually. The law in itself is not a curse. In fact the law promises great blessings for Jews who would faithfully embrace it (before Jesus came). The law defines the way to being blessed or cursed for the Jews.

Again, I totally agree. As I said in a previous post, I affirm that the giving of the law was a blessing, and that the law itself is holy and good. But we are sinful and so the law has a "sting" that kills us, and it is that "curse" of the Torah that Christ saved us from. But that does not alter the fact that the Torah brings bondage, and neither does it alter that fact that the NT makes it clear we should not be seeking to "keep Torah" as Christians.


In Galations where it talks about "dying to the law" it is in specific reference to the portion of the law dealing with a woman being married. When her husband with no living brothers dies, she becomes free from the part of the Torah about marraige to a man. Now she is legally "free" before God to marry another if she wants. Paul employed this example to prove his point. His point was that the dimensions of the law that were were effectively constrictive and/or Spiritually incomplete/insufficient to Jews (like the kosher diet, temple ceremonial worship, the curses for disobediance, the need for the day of atonement as an anual reminder of their Torah-revealed sin, the seperatedness from Gentiles, etc) were satisfied at the cross and now are no longer required of or imposed upon Israel.

There are many problems with that interpretation. The first and most obvious is that it violates the integrity of the Law. The Bilbe states that violation of any part of the Law is equivilent to violation of the whole. Is not your interpretation contrary to that fundamental teaching?

And besides that, Paul said nothing about dying to only a "portion of the Law." On the contrary, "dying to something" means totally breaking your entire relation to it. You can't die to "parts" of the Law. Paul used the marriage law as a metaphor for the relation between the LAW (as a whole) and the believer. We know this because he began his argument saying "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? (Rom 7:1). He then went on to give and example from the Ten Commandments. There is absolutely nothing that would suggest he was limiting his discussion to only some "dimensions of the law that were were effectively constrictive and/or Spiritually incomplete/insufficient." If that were true, then you must be saying that the marriage law is one of the "dimensions" of Torah that is too "constictive." :lol: And besides that, if your statement is true, then Christ did not die for MURDERERS and any other violators of the eternal moral commands of God.

It seems as if you have not thought out how your ideas impact the Gospel. If Christ died only for certain ceremonial portions of the law, then we are all DOOMED because we have all violated the Ten Commandments in thought, word, and deed.

It seems to me my friend that you are forced to add many words and obviously false interpretations to the plain text of Scripture to sustain your unusual doctrines. In Galatians 4 you had to invent the idea that Paul was only talking about "legalistic perversion of the Law" when in fact he was talking about the very nature of the Law itself. And here you again had to limit the obvious reference to the Law as a whole to a meanigless subset that has nothing to do with the Gospel, or the rest of the text itself when Paul gave an example from the Ten Commandments.


Those type of aspects of the Torah are what were "reformed" in Hebrews 9:10. Those external requirements are no longer required of Israel.
A true Israelite of the OC in heart would obediently embrace all of the external regulations of the Torah as a Spiritual act of worship based out of faith.

Where does the NT teach that?


In the externals of the Torah there are many forshadowings of the reality later to be found in the Messiah. The God worshiped through the Torah's format (before Jesus came) was revealed in that system in a limited but sufficient extent for faith based salvation and a limited but true relationship and experience with God. Before Torah there was still faith based salvation (Abraham, Noah, Enoch, etc) but the Torah was an even further and more glorious (it came with Glory, 2 Cor 3:7) revelation of God and opportunity for Israel to be uniquely closer to Him. It was the next stage in the progressive inbreaking of God's kingdom on the earth.

Yes, as noted in a previous post, I agree completely that salvation has always been by grace through faith. But that does not mean that God has two covenants. He finished with the Old when He brought in the New and Better Covenant.

As of the glory of the Old, yes, it was glorious, and written on dead stones, and was called by Paul "The Ministration of Death."


The "other" whome we have been "married" to is Jesus, as being the new covenant in his very person.

Correct! :thumb: We died to the Law as a whole and are married to Jesus as a whole. There is no "partial" aspect to any of that. It's all or nothing. Remember, if you break one commandment you have broken them all.


The law is functionally like a human marraige covenant. It is conditional and limited.

Exactly, and does anyone ever divorce "part" of a woman, to be married to another? No. The break is total and complete.


The part of the Torah that reveals man's sin and sinful nature and God's major issue with such. This dilema is what a NC believer has "died to." The external forms of worship imposed "until the time of reformation" Heb 9:10, in the context, were what was "reformed." The parts of the Torah about the day of atonement as "an anual reminder of sins (He 9:1-7)" was the central aspect transformed at the cross. It also encompassed all the external ceremonial commands like "gifts and sacrifices... food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation." Heb 9:9-10.



You missed the primary point. The Law was changed to accomodate the New Priesthood of Jesus Christ. The LAW was CHANGED to eliminate forever and ever the Levitical priesthood. And that means that the effictive role of Torah as Law ended because the Levitical priesthood is central to it (even literally in the sense that Leviticus is the middle book). The connection between the Levitical priesthood and the reception of the law is made explicit in the same text that says it all ended:
Hebrews 7:11-17 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident if, in the likeness of Melchizedek, there arises another priest 16 who has come, not according to the law of a fleshly commandment [the ENTIRE TORAH], but according to the power of an endless life. 17 For He testifies: "You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek." Again, I know of nothing anywhere in the Bible to support you division of the Law into bits and pieces, some of which were fulfilled in Christ and some not.

Sincethe externals of the ceremonial parts of Jewish worship are no longer "imposed" on Israel, and the part of the OC Law that deals with sin are fully satisfied and no longer condemning a NC believer, then the holiness, righteousness and goodness of God described in the Torah (and thusly then demonstrated through Jesus) are required of all Israel and are met in all NC believers. God demands New Covenant Torah/Law obedience of Israel and indeed, now all of mankind, Acts 17:30.

I disagree. Acts 17:30 isn't talking about a "New Covenant Torah" - that is a contradiction in terms. The New Covenant is not made up of rules and regulations like the Old Covenant Torah. It is Grace versus Law (Torah). To confuse the two and to call the NT a "covenant of law" is to miss everything in the Bible. It creates huge confusions over fundamental, plain, and obvious Scriptures like Romans and Galatians. And so far you have not found a single verse anywhere in the Bible (OT or NT) that directly commands Christians to "obey the OC Torah."


To believe in and folow Jesus through the power of the Spirit is to fulfill the law today. NC faith is how one "establishes/fulfills/perfectly is keeps the law" Rom 3:31. To embrace real faith in the God of Israel and His Son is to perfectly "fulfill" the law. The law is now "reformed" from being a strictly Jewish ceremonial, temple-cult form of worship absent of complete and Spiritual transformation inthe inner man. The "renewed" law as now given via the New covenant and "engraved upon our hearts" does not require those kinds of external forms of worship of anyone. The sacrifial system is utterly fulfilled and the need for such satisfied at the cross. The old covt's "conciousness of sin" being addressed without an absolute solution offered is now removed by Jesus' atoning blood of the new covenant. Faith in Messiah's new covenant blood makes all beleiver's equally just as "lawfully clean" as Jesus Himself. That unites us all as one in him. To love Him is to become fully "clean" and "lawful." That is what it is to be reborn and living the Spiritual life in eternal fellowship with God. That is New Covenant "law keeping" in Galations 6:2, etc.

So you agree now that Christians have no need to keep Sabbath, eat kosher, or any of that? Great! I don't see any problem with that paragraph. But it seems to contradict your idea that the "OT Law" is to be obeyed. I don't see any relevence of the OT Law in that paragraph, except to teach us about the meaning of Christ.



Yes, that was true in the Old Covenant. But that has all been done away with. God does not have a covenant of circumcision with anyone any more. He has comnmanded ALL to come to Him through His Son Jesus Christ, and that's it.
The now required circumcision is all in the heart for every NC believer.The heart and the body's cricumcision was required of OC Jews. Coming to God through Jesus is "curcimcising your heart."

Exactly. God has spiritualized His Law! :thumb:

The Old Covenant Fleshly Law died and was resurrected as the New Covenant Law of the Spirit. Amen!


My only point was just that the law was not this impossibly demanding and burdensome yolk of insecurity as it later was made out to be by the Pharisee party and the Judiazers.

Then why did Peter call it a "yoke ... which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear" (Acts 15:10)?


The "end of the Law" in Romans 10:4 is more accurately translated "goal (Greek telos)of the law."

Exactly. And what happens when the goal is reached? That game is over. Finished. Done.


If an OC Jew before Christ "pursued the law" in faith (9:32) he was saved proavtively by Jesus' asured future sacrifice, Rom 3:25. If one were to have embraced the law by faith and then met Jesus, he would recognize and follow God the Son out of personal revelation from his OC relationship with the Father. Jesus said, "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me." John 6:45. He was the "goal" of the law, justification in Jesus' name. All the types and shadows were of Him. The law was intended to direct people into life (fellowship with God) and that life is in fellowship with Jesus Himself by the Spirit, even in a limited proactive sense.

Agreed!



But as for Paul, he most definitely DID NOT obey Torah all his life, because he was happy to eat with Gentiles, and he taught directly against the circumcision commandment of the Torah as we know on numerous occasions, especially in Galatians 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." Paul explicitly declared he was not "preaching circumcision" which is the primary commandemnt in the Torah. If he was not teaching circumcision, he was not teaching Torah. Its as simple as that.
the Bible does not say that Paul ate unclean food with Gentiles, only that he ate with them. That was breaking an extra-biblical oral tradition of the Pharisees. Paul did not break the law, Acts 21:24. "Preaching circumcision" was to preach conversion to old covenant Judaism. Paul was against that as it contradicted salvation through Jesus by faith alone. Paul also said "Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised (as if abandining Judaism gets him closer to salvation)... Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is keeping the commandments of God." 1 Cor 7:18-19. Paul was, however, preaching the circumcision of the heart- just like the old covenant prophets but now in full view of the gospel of the kingdom!

Yes, I see your point, and I agree that Paul was not going around telling Jews to quit Judaism. But I also am convinced that he did not feel compelled at all to continue "keeping Torah" because, as you noted, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision meant anything in light of Christ.



I know of no direct commandment anywhere in the NT that Christians (Jew or Gentile) should obey Torah. Do you?
For starters, Mat 5:19b, James 1:25, 2:8...

Wa Jesus addressing Christians in Matthew 5:19b? No. He was talking to Jews under the Old Covenant. So that verse is not a command to Christians to keep Torah.

As for James 1:25, it says "But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does." There is no reference to the Old Covenant Torah in that verse. James is obviously talking about the New Covenant Law of Liberty which is directly contrasted with the Old Covenant Law the "gendereth bondage" (Gal 4:24).

And as for James 2:8, the "royal law" is the New Covenant of Love and Faith, not the Old Covenant Law of works.

This exemplifies the problem I have with your doctrine. It is not based on the clear teachings found throughout the Bible but on bits and pieces here and there with dubious interpretations (or so it seems to me anyway).


I was a little unsettled when you said "some Messianic teacher." It sounded like there was lack of love and respect. I understand being frustrated at times with some of the Messianic teachers. I do not enjoy when people try to condescendingly attempt to convert me to a legalistic and religious Messianic Gentile faith. I personally practice certain Jewish holidays out of Spiritual freedom. But anything of that sort is not somehow more Spiritual than a Christian who does not do any such thing. It is a matter of the freedom of choice and Spiritual maturity. Maturity edifies others and reveals God to them, it does not demand conformity to a system. Maturity is the freedom of God's Spirit. Not rules of dos and don'ts, even "do or don't celebrate anything that the Jews celebrate!" Where the Spirit is there is freedom.
Happy new year!!!!!!

Very well stated bro! Thanks for sharing your heart. I am not judging any of your personal practices. Indeed, for all I know there could be real spiritual value in your practices, just like there is real value in other spiritual practices. I really hope you do not mistake anything I say as a judgment on what you do or don't do. Indeed, how could I judge? I've never even met you in person. So I pray you continue to walk in the freedom for which Christ died to give you.

God bless, and happy new year again.


P S pleas try to make the next post way smaller. this one is way to much. Thanks and bless you.
Ooooooops. It aint easy, is it? A one sentence question leads to a five sentence answer which leads to a 25 sentence response .... exponential growth! Please don't feel obligated to answer every word I wrote. Just pick the one thing you think is most important and pick up the converstation there.

God bless you bro!

Richard

PS: Here's a tip on the "quote" function. I noticed sometimes you put the starting tag [noparse]
[noparse] in the place where the end tag [noparse][noparse] should go. That's why some of the quotes didn't come out right.

[eliyahu]

Again, I totally agree. As I said in a previous post, I affirm that the giving of the law was a blessing, and that the law itself is holy and good. But we are sinful and so the law has a "sting" that kills us, and it is that "curse" of the Torah that Christ saved us from. But that does not alter the fact that the Torah brings bondage, and neither does it alter that fact that the NT makes it clear we should not be seeking to "keep Torah" as Christians.

I believe that I am being misunderstood in some areas. When you describe your disagreements with me you are sometimes arguing against something I am not saying. I hope these things will become more clear in my posts. I am trying.
As for "keeping Torah" as Chistians... Firstly, I do not believe that the old covenant is in force after the cross.
The word "torah" means "law, teaching, commandment." The law reveals God's holiness, righteousness and goodness. It teaches us what God is like, what man is like, what the terms ouf their relationship were, and what lifestyle and worship God was requiring of Israel. It had Genesis as the foundation. Abraham's justification by faith and not works was the foundational prerequisite to obedience demanded later on in the legal parts of the Torah. The obedience God desired from Abraham's descendants was to be from an "Abrahamic" saving faith in God. The portions of the Torah containing Israel's commandments from God were purposefully inserted in latter sections of the five books of Moses so as not to confuse anyone that Torah obedience was the condition of the promise being fulfilled. Indeed the torah itself fortold Israel's failure to do so. It thoroughly revealed Israel's problem with sin and the sin nature. It also promised a revoltionary prophet to come, the Messiah, Deut 18.
The Messiah would bring what is now called the "reformation" of the law, Heb 9:10. That meant that the law would no longer be external regulations that cannot transform the sinner's nature in which nothing "good" (like the law is "good") dwells. The law would be transcribed onto the heart, effectively giving Christ's holy nature to the person receiving the new covenant by faith. Now that the law is written on NC believer's hearts we are "keepers of the law" by FAITH IN JESUS. Not keeping the old and now passed away external regulations of the Old covenant but fulfilling the requirements of divine love through faith in Jesus. He is the living and new way, which is effectually a living and new Torah altogether. His presence in us is the "law writtenon our hearts."
The promises to Abraham's seed (Jesus) were not conditional upon the legal portions of the Torah given generations after the promises were made. Those legal portion mostly revealed man's need for the sin issue to be permanently dealt with by God. That was the curse of teh law and the bondage it begat. Jesus satisfied all those demands in His death.
So the law of love for the new cov't is in Gal 6:2, "the law of Christ." That different law is the new nature of Christ in the believer. It is not the old covenant but the new, new in that there is Christ, the new and living way. There is no longer any conciousness of sin the in the new covenant. The "royal law" of James is the same law Christ commended being taught to be obeyed in the kingdom of God (which has begun) in Mat 5:19b.


There are many problems with that interpretation. The first and most obvious is that it violates the integrity of the Law. The Bilbe states that violation of any part of the Law is equivilent to violation of the whole. Is not your interpretation contrary to that fundamental teaching?
No it is not. We all violate the law no matter how you view it. James' said that "faith without works is dead." Then he made the point was that we cannot atempt flawless obedience as our assurance of salvation. That is why he reminded people that if you are guilty of one thing you are guilty of being "lawless" in actions. Whatever amount of guilt one acrues, one has become a lawbreaker. We all have been found guiilty. That is why the new covenant had to be made in the first place (Jer 31, because Israel broke it). The law gave God legally clear reason for finding fault in people, Heb 8:7. But now that the nature of the law and the nature recipients of the new covenant have both been changed, the "Righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not live our lives out of our "flesh" (unregenerate human nature) but according to the indwelling life of the Spirit" Roman 8:4.


And besides that, Paul said nothing about dying to only a "portion of the Law." On the contrary, "dying to something" means totally breaking your entire relation to it. You can't die to "parts" of the Law.

I will answer that and reiterate that the law is Spiritual and we are carnal. Now that we are transformed and "spiritual" we can fulfill its "righteous requirement." This requirement has nothing to do with sin or sacrifice or externals which are now passed away and making the old covenant "old." It has to do with divine love found in Christ. Christ's nature is imparted into us by faith and effectually "writes the law on our hearts." So sin and sacrifice are not part of the new covenant's "law written on the heart." The law's requirement of righteousness is met in Jesus' new covenant.


If that were true, then you must be saying that the marriage law is one of the "dimensions" of Torah that is too "constictive." :lol: And besides that, if your statement is true, then Christ did not die for MURDERERS and any other violators of the eternal moral commands of God. It seems as if you have not thought out how your ideas impact the Gospel. If Christ died only for certain ceremonial portions of the law, then we are all DOOMED because we have all violated the Ten Commandments in thought, word, and deed.
The dimensions of the law that we have died to along with Jesus on the cross are all the parts (which are majore ones) addressing sin. All the external regulations' purposes were also fulfilled and lifted off of Israel's shoulders by the cross as well. But the requirement of righteousness and love are still in effect and being preserved from the old covenant and even elevated and made new in Jesus. Those requirements are met by faith in the gospel. That is why Jesus demanded people to teach the law of God, the law of Christ, in Mat 5:19.





Yes, as noted in a previous post, I agree completely that salvation has always been by grace through faith. But that does not mean that God has two covenants. He finished with the Old when He brought in the New and Better Covenant.
I agree. There is only one covenant in force today, the new one.




Correct! :thumb: We died to the Law as a whole and are married to Jesus as a whole. There is no "partial" aspect to any of that. It's all or nothing. Remember, if you break one commandment you have broken them all.

Exactly, and does anyone ever divorce "part" of a woman, to be married to another? No. The break is total and complete.
If I was unclear, let be fix that and say that I agree with you. There is only one covenant now. However, that new covenant is also a Torah and is written on our hearts. The new Torah is new because is a the old one completely transformed in its nature and its fulfillment. It begins and ends in Jesus. The old covenant law was intended to lead us to salvation in Jesus. Once Jesus came that kind of "pre-messiah" law was no longer even necessary, the God man had come as king. God's kingdom had begun in Jesus.





Again, I know of nothing anywhere in the Bible to support you division of the Law into bits and pieces, some of which were fulfilled in Christ and some not.
All of the Torah is fulfilled in Jesus. That does not at all mean that the righteous requirement of the law is no longer required. To the contrary. The requirement is met through faith in Jesus, it is not removed.




It is Grace versus Law (Torah). To confuse the two and to call the NT a "covenant of law" is to miss everything in the Bible. It creates huge confusions over fundamental, plain, and obvious Scriptures like Romans and Galatians. And so far you have not found a single verse anywhere in the Bible (OT or NT) that directly commands Christians to "obey the OC Torah."
There is nothing commanding anyone to obey the OC law. There is cammands to obey the Lord through the Spirit via the new covt'. But God's grace was in the old Torah, although it was limited in its revelation it was just as gracious. God never ever set "grace against law." Consider Psalm 119! God did set "grace against salvation by works or legalism" which is precisely how statements like "under the law" and "free from the law" etc. need to be considered in their contexts.



So you agree now that Christians have no need to keep Sabbath, eat kosher, or any of that? Great! I don't see any problem with that paragraph.
Neither Christians nor Jews are commanded such things. [/QUOTE]But it seems to contradict your idea that the "OT Law" is to be obeyed.[/QUOTE]
I don't teach that the OC law is to be obeyed.


The Old Covenant Fleshly Law died and was resurrected as the New Covenant Law of the Spirit. Amen!


Exactly. And what happens when the goal is reached? That game is over. Finished. Done. I will get back to you on this major issue.



Was Jesus addressing Christians in Matthew 5:19b? No. He was talking to Jews under the Old Covenant. So that verse is not a command to Christians to keep Torah.
It is not a command for Christians or Jews to keep the OC law. It is for Jews under the old covenant. But how do you interpret how Jesus claimed that anyone who keeps (present tense) teaches the Torah would be (future) called great in the kingdom? It means that keeping and teaching the law is to be held in esteem in the current kingdom of God! How that is done is the mystery of teh gospel in the new covenant we have been discussing. That law was transformed and imparted into our nature now. That is the "law" we are to keep and teach.



And as for James 2:8, the "royal law" is the New Covenant of Love and Faith, not the Old Covenant Law of works.
James 2:8 is directly quoting the old covenant law word for word. He was saying that if you truly obey the law of Moses as summed up by Jesus in this one command, (by faith through the power of the Spirit through Jesus, ie the New Covenant on our hearts) you are fulfilling the "righteous requirement of teh Law" of Moses. That law has been transformed into the NC "law of Christ" Gal 6:2. We fulfill the requirement of teh law of Moses by the power of the Spirit in the new covt.

Its my b-day tomorrow. Will talk later. God bless and be good.:lol::pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I believe that I am being misunderstood in some areas. When you describe your disagreements with me you are sometimes arguing against something I am not saying. I hope these things will become more clear in my posts. I am trying.

I am quite certain you are correct, my brother! I know that I do not really understand your position yet, and that's what we are trying to clarify. I really appreciate your efforts, they are very valuable to us all.


As for "keeping Torah" as Chistians... Firstly, I do not believe that the old covenant is in force after the cross.

Excellent ... we see eye to eye on that point. :thumb:


The word "torah" means "law, teaching, commandment." The law reveals God's holiness, righteousness and goodness.

All true!


It teaches us what God is like, what man is like, what the terms ouf their relationship were, and what lifestyle and worship God was requiring of Israel. It had Genesis as the foundation. Abraham's justification by faith and not works was the foundational prerequisite to obedience demanded later on in the legal parts of the Torah.

Total agreement! I often refer to Gen 15:6 as the "Genesis of the Gospel."


The obedience God desired from Abraham's descendants was to be from an "Abrahamic" saving faith in God. The portions of the Torah containing Israel's commandments from God were purposefully inserted in latter sections of the five books of Moses so as not to confuse anyone that Torah obedience was the condition of the promise being fulfilled.

Agreed. Galatians 3:17 - the law does not annul the promises.


Indeed the torah itself fortold Israel's failure to do so. It thoroughly revealed Israel's problem with sin and the sin nature. It also promised a revoltionary prophet to come, the Messiah, Deut 18.

Amen!


The Messiah would bring what is now called the "reformation" of the law, Heb 9:10. That meant that the law would no longer be external regulations that cannot transform the sinner's nature in which nothing "good" (like the law is "good") dwells. The law would be transcribed onto the heart, effectively giving Christ's holy nature to the person receiving the new covenant by faith. Now that the law is written on NC believer's hearts we are "keepers of the law" by FAITH IN JESUS. Not keeping the old and now passed away external regulations of the Old covenant but fulfilling the requirements of divine love through faith in Jesus. He is the living and new way, which is effectually a living and new Torah altogether. His presence in us is the "law writtenon our hearts."

Yes, that is correct. I would only add that we don't keep any of the "old law" - not even the Ten Commandments. We keep the Law of Love which then automatically fulfilles the Ten Commandments, but is not guided by them. I do not refrain from murder in "obedience" to the Sixth Commandment, I refrain from murder in obedience to the Law of Love.


The promises to Abraham's seed (Jesus) were not conditional upon the legal portions of the Torah given generations after the promises were made. Those legal portion mostly revealed man's need for the sin issue to be permanently dealt with by God. That was the curse of teh law and the bondage it begat. Jesus satisfied all those demands in His death.
So the law of love for the new cov't is in Gal 6:2, "the law of Christ." That different law is the new nature of Christ in the believer. It is not the old covenant but the new, new in that there is Christ, the new and living way. There is no longer any conciousness of sin the in the new covenant. The "royal law" of James is the same law Christ commended being taught to be obeyed in the kingdom of God (which has begun) in Mat 5:19b.

We were tracking perfectly right up to that last sentence, but I am confused here because you say that the "royal law" is the "Old Covenant Torah." Perhaps this point will clear up as I read more of your answers below. Everything else makes perfect sense.




There are many problems with that interpretation. The first and most obvious is that it violates the integrity of the Law. The Bilbe states that violation of any part of the Law is equivilent to violation of the whole. Is not your interpretation contrary to that fundamental teaching?

No it is not. We all violate the law no matter how you view it. James' said that "faith without works is dead." Then he made the point was that we cannot atempt flawless obedience as our assurance of salvation. That is why he reminded people that if you are guilty of one thing you are guilty of being "lawless" in actions. Whatever amount of guilt one acrues, one has become a lawbreaker. We all have been found guiilty. That is why the new covenant had to be made in the first place (Jer 31, because Israel broke it). The law gave God legally clear reason for finding fault in people, Heb 8:7. But now that the nature of the law and the nature recipients of the new covenant have both been changed, the "Righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not live our lives out of our "flesh" (unregenerate human nature) but according to the indwelling life of the Spirit" Roman 8:4.

Amen indeed! That's great bro!




And besides that, Paul said nothing about dying to only a "portion of the Law." On the contrary, "dying to something" means totally breaking your entire relation to it. You can't die to "parts" of the Law.

I will answer that and reiterate that the law is Spiritual and we are carnal. Now that we are transformed and "spiritual" we can fulfill its "righteous requirement." This requirement has nothing to do with sin or sacrifice or externals which are now passed away and making the old covenant "old." It has to do with divine love found in Christ. Christ's nature is imparted into us by faith and effectually "writes the law on our hearts." So sin and sacrifice are not part of the new covenant's "law written on the heart." The law's requirement of righteousness is met in Jesus' new covenant.

Amen! How is it that we disagreed about anything? It just goes to show how difficult it can be to talk about important things on internet forums. Let this be a reminder to us all, and a warning about assuming we "know" where the other person is coming from before we have had a chance to discuss things peaceably and with charity. Just imagine how things would have fallen apart if we had started hurling accusations at each other. Thank God for His Spirit to guide us in our converstation.


The dimensions of the law that we have died to along with Jesus on the cross are all the parts (which are majore ones) addressing sin. All the external regulations' purposes were also fulfilled and lifted off of Israel's shoulders by the cross as well. But the requirement of righteousness and love are still in effect and being preserved from the old covenant and even elevated and made new in Jesus. Those requirements are met by faith in the gospel. That is why Jesus demanded people to teach the law of God, the law of Christ, in Mat 5:19.
I agree that "Jesus demanded people to teach the law of God" - but the nature of that law and our understanding of it changed at the Cross. So it can be very misleading to say that Jesus commanded "Torah observance" for Christians because that would entail all those carnal commandments that we agree passed away.

And still, I would assert that we are not "obeying the OT Law" when we obey the Royal Law of Love in Christ, because we are guided by Love rather than "thou shalt not kill." While the former implies the latter, the latter does not necessarily imply the former. The relation is not symmetric.




Yes, as noted in a previous post, I agree completely that salvation has always been by grace through faith. But that does not mean that God has two covenants. He finished with the Old when He brought in the New and Better Covenant.

I agree. There is only one covenant in force today, the new one.

Excellent. We seem to be in perfect agreement about most things! :tea:




Correct! :thumb: We died to the Law as a whole and are married to Jesus as a whole. There is no "partial" aspect to any of that. It's all or nothing. Remember, if you break one commandment you have broken them all.

Exactly, and does anyone ever divorce "part" of a woman, to be married to another? No. The break is total and complete.

If I was unclear, let be fix that and say that I agree with you. There is only one covenant now. However, that new covenant is also a Torah and is written on our hearts. The new Torah is new because is a the old one completely transformed in its nature and its fulfillment. It begins and ends in Jesus. The old covenant law was intended to lead us to salvation in Jesus. Once Jesus came that kind of "pre-messiah" law was no longer even necessary, the God man had come as king. God's kingdom had begun in Jesus.

Again, we agree. But I would be careful about using the word "Torah" because it can very easily be confused with the old Torah with its bloody animal sacrifices and Sabbath keeping and kosher laws which has led to so much confusion.


There is nothing commanding anyone to obey the OC law. There is cammands to obey the Lord through the Spirit via the new covt'. But God's grace was in the old Torah, although it was limited in its revelation it was just as gracious. God never ever set "grace against law." Consider Psalm 119! God did set "grace against salvation by works or legalism" which is precisely how statements like "under the law" and "free from the law" etc. need to be considered in their contexts.
Well, this is an area that requires discussion. I don't agree that God never contrasted grace and law, but I we don't need to settle it right now. I'm enjoying our broad overarching agreement on the fundamentals. Its very refreshing. :)




Was Jesus addressing Christians in Matthew 5:19b? No. He was talking to Jews under the Old Covenant. So that verse is not a command to Christians to keep Torah.

It is not a command for Christians or Jews to keep the OC law. It is for Jews under the old covenant. But how do you interpret how Jesus claimed that anyone who keeps (present tense) teaches the Torah would be (future) called great in the kingdom? It means that keeping and teaching the law is to be held in esteem in the current kingdom of God! How that is done is the mystery of teh gospel in the new covenant we have been discussing. That law was transformed and imparted into our nature now. That is the "law" we are to keep and teach.

I agree - we preach "Torah" by preacing how Christ fulfilled it, and that we must obey the Royal Law of the Spirit through Christ. I think we can understand that well.


Its my b-day tomorrow. Will talk later. God bless and be good.:lol::pray:
Happy Birthday Brother! I know if it were my birthday tomorrow, I would accept our wonderful agreements to be a most pleasant gift. :hug:

God bless you and keep you and your family.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hello Eliyaho and Richard,

I think the best and easiest way to show which we serve (Torah or Grace) is obvious in scripture.

Paul shows that the Law was delivered in order to show us our sinning. Those found guilty of violating the law were kept in bondage through works (temple sacrifices, fasting, new moon celebrations, and annual offerings) of the Law until Christ would come. The difference between serving via the Torah and serving the Holy Spirit is this. The Torah, or the Law in itself, cannot adequately teach about true righteousness. For instance, the Law in itself teaches us not to commit adultery. But as Christ stated, those who merely lust after someone in their heart has already committed adultery even though no physical act was committed. The Law cannot teach you things like that. The same goes for something as simple as a lie. The Law does not teach that lying is wrong. But the commandment says, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". That in essence means that telling a lie to someone may cause that person grief or emotional pain, thus through the lie you do not love your neighbor. Yet, the Law cannot teach us the truthful meaning of the Law.

The Holy Spirit can teach us the deeper truths of the Law. It's the Holy Spirit that convicts us of sin when committed. It's the Holy Spirit which penetrates our hearts and our minds. And it's the Holy Spirit which is the word (or command) of God. So instead of relying on words written on paper for our instruction, we rely on BY FAITH in the Holy Spirit. That is the righteousness which is by faith. The Law says, "Send someone down to proclaim to us the law..." while faith says, "It's very near you, in your mouth and in your heart" that those who confess that Jesus is their Lord, know by faith that they can be saved from sin through His conviction within the inner man (or woman).

Faith relies on the Spirit, but flesh relies on what it sees or reads. Therefore, the Torah is obsolete and no longer required. Does this mean that the Law has been set aside? Certainly not. But through the Holy Spirit of Jesus, and our obedience to His voice and instruction, we uphold and fulfill the Law. And our righteousness is based on His instruction and commands.

Does this mean we shouldn't read? Certainly not! But even the Pharisee's studied the scripture intently (as Christ stated) because they (like many of the faith today) thought that life comes through reading the scriptures. But in truth, it doesn't; life comes through Jesus Christ abiding within us. For Satan reads the scriptures yet remains the largest sinner of all. Reading the scripture does not fill us with wisdom or knowledge, rather through the Holy Spirit, we understand the scriptures, and are able to use it for admonishment and instruction. And only by the Holy Spirit are we counseled on works of righteousness, so that in all of our good works, our boasting is not in ourselves, as if by our own efforts we attained to righteousness, but by His doing and instruction within us.

The Torah means nothing unless we have the word of God within us, through His Spirit and not our printing press, or hand-copied scrolls. So those who advocate righteousness based on the Torah or the Law are in error. A Gentile who becomes a child of God through Jesus Christ does not need the Torah, in that the Torah (Or the Law) abides within his inner being.....but you must have faith in order to make this work. Believe me, it's a lot harder than most people think. Just listen to the voice in your mind, and trust that Jesus will guide you in the right path. However, He does not always give right away, but only when you are ready. That is why answers are not always immediately available, even when trying to study the scriptures.

Joe

[eliyahu]

Hi folks. I appreciate your comments. I will have to talk later. We can start a new thread maybe. Bless you

[eliyahu]

Richard, before we start a new thread can we clarify somethings first? We started out discussing the two verses that say that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. I added that those verses also say no male of female, etc. I said that, whatever your beliefs were, do you see that those verses do not say anything about the elimination of our identity as men or women, Jew or Gentile? They are discussing our unity in Messiah's body. After your replies we could probably start a new thread.
And the Ro7 marraige analogy... I was trying to say that a woman is free specifically from the marraige part of the Torah when her husband died. That was the specific portion of the law she was freed from, not the entirety of the law. In that same sense we have been freed from previously discussed parts/dimensions of the law which effectually made them "old." Now we are legally "married to another." This is metaphorical language about our identification with the death of the messiah and what the theological implications toward us are because of his death and resurrection. His resurrection is what being "married" was getting at.

[MHz]

I haven't yet seen anybody cover that under Christ's covenant (given at the last passover meal) that makes anybody a sinner simply by thinking of doing anything that would break any OT Law. So if OT Law was difficult to keep then the new Law is more than impossible to keep. That we need to repent through prayer would also indicate those Laws are not written on our hearts, if they were repentance would not be needed because the thoughts (that put us into sin) would never enter our hearts in the first place.

[TheForgiven]

I haven't yet seen anybody cover that under Christ's covenant (given at the last passover meal) that makes anybody a sinner simply by thinking of doing anything that would break any OT Law. So if OT Law was difficult to keep then the new Law is more than impossible to keep. That we need to repent through prayer would also indicate those Laws are not written on our hearts, if they were repentance would not be needed because the thoughts (that put us into sin) would never enter our hearts in the first place.

I don't quite follow what you were trying to say MHz. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that a Christian truly saved would not have thoughts of sinning? If so, brother sin is a struggle in everyone's life. John says, "If we say we have not sinned, the truth is not in us...." and Paul states, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.." and again, "but if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins". There are many more which show that even a child of God will sin. But those who "continue" to sin, even after knowledge has been attained of the offense, over time, the heart begins to harden and the temple becomes desolate once Christ decides the temple is no longer sacred or undefiled.

Paul also states that the Law could not take away sins, much less instruct anyone of it. It was added to make sin utterly sinful. In other words, the Law was added so that we'd know just how aweful sin was, for prior to the Law, there was no condemnation apart from the Law.

But God proposed to put the Law within our hearts and our minds, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is Jesus Christ forever and ever. Amen!

Therefore, we by faith trust in the guidance of His Inspiration (Holy Spirit), and know that when our conscious condemns us, its because of an offense we've committed. But when our conscious is clear, then our confidense is much stronger to boldly approach the King. So we either choose to serve "Faith through the Spirit" or "what's written on paper".

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, before we start a new thread can we clarify somethings first? We started out discussing the two verses that say that there is no Jew or Gentile in Christ. I added that those verses also say no male of female, etc. I said that, whatever your beliefs were, do you see that those verses do not say anything about the elimination of our identity as men or women, Jew or Gentile? They are discussing our unity in Messiah's body. After your replies we could probably start a new thread.
And the Ro7 marraige analogy... I was trying to say that a woman is free specifically from the marraige part of the Torah when her husband died. That was the specific portion of the law she was freed from, not the entirety of the law. In that same sense we have been freed from previously discussed parts/dimensions of the law which effectually made them "old." Now we are legally "married to another." This is metaphorical language about our identification with the death of the messiah and what the theological implications toward us are because of his death and resurrection. His resurrection is what being "married" was getting at.
Good morning Eliyahu,

I don't quite follow your ideas of marriage and the death of Christ, but we can discuss that later. I think the first item of importance is the idea of a continued role of the "Jew" versus the "Gentile" in the body of Christ. I still have seen anything that convinced me that such a distinction exists. As explained earlier, I think all Christians (Jew and Gentile) were supposed to work together to make the unbelieving natural children of Abraham "jealous." But I say "were" because I am not even sure that this is an ongoing thing throughout the ages, but probably applied to the first century before the destruction of 70 AD (though I'm not certain of that).

So the most important thing right now would be to clarify what you think the different roles would be between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Richard

[MHz]

Can a Christian be considered to have committed a sin by thought alone?

Furthermore, can a Christian ask for Christ to forgive 'that sin' without first asking the person 'sinned against' to forgive them?

You don't believe in a world without sin, do you?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I haven't yet seen anybody cover that under Christ's covenant (given at the last passover meal) that makes anybody a sinner simply by thinking of doing anything that would break any OT Law. So if OT Law was difficult to keep then the new Law is more than impossible to keep. That we need to repent through prayer would also indicate those Laws are not written on our hearts, if they were repentance would not be needed because the thoughts (that put us into sin) would never enter our hearts in the first place.
Hey there MHz! :yo:

Or is genuine repentance proof that those laws are written on our hearts, since that is why we feel remorse and repent when we sin?

Would folks without God's Law written on their hearts feel sorrow for sin?

Romans 2:14-16 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
The relation between sin and the redeemed Christian who "can not sin" (1 John 3:9) has always been a sticky wicket.

Richard

[MHz]

Or is genuine repentance proof that those laws are written on our hearts, since that is why we feel remorse and repent when we sin?

Would folks without God's Law written on their hearts feel sorrow for sin?

Romans 2:14-16 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
The relation between sin and the redeemed Christian who "can not sin" (1 John 3:9) has always been a sticky wicket.

Richard

That verse you posted said they don't do certain things because it is written in their hearts.
Repenting happens when you go against what Christ has told us not to do, two Laws. That is short of being written in a heart.
I hope you are not suggesting that 'the sticky wicket' is that there never will be a world without sin, that the way the world is today is how the kingdom of God will be forever.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That verse you posted said they don't do certain things because it is written in their hearts.
Repenting happens when you go against what Christ has told us not to do, two Laws. That is short of being written in a heart.

Repenting also happens when you realize that you have gone against what Christ has told us not to do after attempting to obey exactly what He has told us to do.


I hope you are not suggesting that 'the sticky wicket' is that there never will be a world without sin, that the way the world is today is how the kingdom of God will be forever.
I was noting that 1 John 3:9 is a "sticky wicket" - why didn't you respond to that verse?

As for the idea that "there never will be a world without sin" - we know that's not true because we already live in a world without sin. All true believers are IN CHRIST and IN CHRIST there is no sin. Furthermore, Scritpure declares that we have been (past tense) seated with Christ in the heavenly places. Again, there is no sin in the heavenly places where Christ is. But yes, our carnal bodies in this carnal world are still subject to sin. But this carnal world is PASSING AWAY and only the Kingdom of God remains forever. And there is no sin in the Kingdom of God.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Ah yes, I seem to remember debating with a person many years ago about the truth of salvation. This person believed in the Calvin doctrine who says that a Christian is saved only when he is called. And when this person accepts his or her calling, it would be impossible to lose salvation because God keeps them safe....everyone else is sent to hell.

By his understanding, a person is either "Locked" into salvation, or he never had it. That was to fuel his defense for eternal security on those who are saved by election, and everyone else is hardened.

He also used this theory to show that a "True" Christian would not sin because he or she is born of God. If children of God are incapable of sinning, then why would they have to learn to pray for forgiveness? What would they possibly need to repent of, if they must be "born" perfect?

I'm not quite following what you mean MHz.

Joe

[MHz]

Repenting also happens when you realize that you have gone against what Christ has told us not to do after attempting to obey exactly what He has told us to do.
:confused2:



I was noting that 1 John 3:9 is a "sticky wicket" - why didn't you respond to that verse?

Why focus on just that one verse? There are many important verses in that chapter.
1Jo:3:2: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

There should be some kind of list of things that changed from when the Gospel was first taken to the Gentiles and His return in your date of 70AD.
This verse below should also come with some sort of list on things that changed.

1Jo:3:8: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Now it gets really interesting.
1Jo:3:14: We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1Jo:3:15: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.

M't:5:42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
M't:5:43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
M't:5:44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
M't:5:45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
M't:5:46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
M't:5:47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
M't:5:48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.



As for the idea that "there never will be a world without sin" - we know that's not true because we already live in a world without sin. All true believers are IN CHRIST and IN CHRIST there is no sin. Furthermore, Scritpure declares that we have been (past tense) seated with Christ in the heavenly places. Again, there is no sin in the heavenly places where Christ is. But yes, our carnal bodies in this carnal world are still subject to sin. But this carnal world is PASSING AWAY and only the Kingdom of God remains forever. And there is no sin in the Kingdom of God.


I though you said these verses was valid for the last 1900 years?

Re:21:1: And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Re:21:2: And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Re:21:3: And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Re:21:4: And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Re:21:5: And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Re:21:6: And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

[eliyahu]

Good morning Eliyahu,

I don't quite follow your ideas of marriage and the death of Christ, but we can discuss that later. I think the first item of importance is the idea of a continued role of the "Jew" versus the "Gentile" in the body of Christ. I still have seen anything that convinced me that such a distinction exists. As explained earlier, I think all Christians (Jew and Gentile) were supposed to work together to make the unbelieving natural children of Abraham "jealous." But I say "were" because I am not even sure that this is an ongoing thing throughout the ages, but probably applied to the first century before the destruction of 70 AD (though I'm not certain of that).

So the most important thing right now would be to clarify what you think the different roles would be between Jewish and Gentile Christians.

Richard

Ok, well I want to stay here until we cover this if that ok? You may not see anything that there is a distinction between Jew and Gentile and that's your belief. But I am specifically referring to the two verses that say "there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female..." Do you at the very least admit that these two verses do not eliminate the distinctiveness between Jew or Gentile, male or female? You can try to defend your belief somehow without these verses as your support. But to say that these verses support you also implies that all believers are now androgenous! And neither slave nor free which would translate to our modern USA as "employed nor unemployed." None of those can be true. Whatever those verses mean, they do not eliminate our identity and God-given funtion as men or women in the church, the role of slave or free, and yes, our being either a Jew and Gentile.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ok, well I want to stay here until we cover this if that ok? You may not see anything that there is a distinction between Jew and Gentile and that's your belief. But I am specifically referring to the two verses that say "there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female..." Do you at the very least admit that these two verses do not eliminate the distinctiveness between Jew or Gentile, male or female? You can try to defend your belief somehow without these verses as your support. But to say that these verses support you also implies that all believers are now androgenous! And neither slave nor free which would translate to our modern USA as "employed nor unemployed." None of those can be true. Whatever those verses mean, they do not eliminate our identity and God-given funtion as men or women in the church, the role of slave or free, and yes, our being either a Jew and Gentile.
Good morning Eliyahu! :yo:

I thought I already was clear that I agreed with you on this point. When a person becomes a Christian, their natural identity remains the same. A man remains male, and a man who was a Jew by heritage remains a Jew by heritage. In that sense all distinctions remain intact. And they may have different roles such as bearing children of leadership.

And what was Paul saying in Gal 3:28? I think we agree that he was saying that there is no difference between Jew and Greek or man and woman in their relation to Christ. Other distinctions could remain, and now we need to discuss what, if any, distinctions remain in the roles of Jews and Gentiles in the Body of Christ.

So I agree with your point that Galatians 3:28 does not itself prove there are not "different roles" for Jews and Gentiles. But it does push in that direction because there is nothing else in the NT that suggests a different role, and because the different roles of men and woman are based on ontology, whereas there is not such onological difference between Jew and Gentile.

Now lets take the fast track to the solution of this idea. Please post the verses that make it clear that Jews and Gentiles have "different roles" in the Body of Christ, and what those roles are.

Richard

[eliyahu]

Thanks for the "happy b-day!"
Let's remember to pray for the caususes. Much rests on the election.

As for the vers(es) explaining that Jews and Gentiles have different roles in the body of Messiah. Ga 3 is a good one to begin with. At least we agree that a Jewish person remains Jewish after believing in Jesus as Messiah. Otherwise they could not be called Jews there or elsewhere in the New test.

No one has ever even asked me that question and I confess that off the top of myi head here I can't pin a verse. I would say though that a difference in roles in the body for Jews as opposed to Gentiles would be to retain their Jewishness to whatever level they did before faith in Jesus within the New Covenant's boundaries. This could mean maintaining the religion and culture of Judaism insofarasmuch as it does not undermine the Lordship of Jesus.

Just as Paul and the other apostles maintained their Torah observant lifestyles, Jews today ought to feel free to do similarly. They may acknowledge and embrace their heritage for what it is- and to make it something that honors God through their Messiah. Who really knows if this could be employed as an evangelistic "tool" to reach other Jews. That ought not be the reason at all to maintain their Jewishness on any recognizable level.

Since the Jews' God and Messiah is the God and Messiah worshipped in Christianity, it would only make sense that there is a recognized part of the New Covenant family of faith which is distinctively Jewish. The Jewish differences from Gentiles would produce glory unto God if those Jews and their lifestyles were embraced by the rest of the church which is not Jewish for who they are: equal family . Unity in diversity is the glory of God. Honor and freedom for diversity is also. That united diversity, especially between believing Jewish Jews and Gentile Christians, is something that both Judaism and Christianity as a whole throughout the ages has not been able to produce, tolerate, nor desire. It has not even been sought until modern times.

A Christianity that has a love and acceptance and appreciation for forms of Messiah believing Judasim is one that is more likely to be used by God as a witness to the Jews for one (to "provoke Israel to jealousy," Romans 11:11, which is the original purpose of Gentile salvation, Rom 11:11:11, and a main reason of the church's existance at all, which is also the reason for there even being a the pre-millenial "church" age). The reality that the Church is a threat to the existance of Jews remaining Jewish needs to diminish more and more. Christianity was never supposed to become a negative threat to Judaism's existance, with or without Messiah.

In short, the church should grow in maturuty to become someting that is a statement to Israel which is saying "Your people are my people. Your God is my God." Instead of this, the statement the church has historicall implied has been "My people are really "your" people. My God is your God, stupid!"

I hope this progresses our interaction. I am enjoying this. It is unusual that other believers will discuss the scriptures and not accuse you of being ful of "head knowledge" with no heart revelation, just because you know and love the scriptures. God bless you. I am encouraged when I am challenged to explain myslef or to re-examine what I believe and why. I hope you are to. We can benefit from each other when we maintain the right Spirit. Thank you.

[White]

Eliyahu writes:
A Christianity that has a love and acceptance and appreciation for forms of Messiah believing Judasim is one that is more likely to be used by God as a witness to the Jews for one (to "provoke Israel to jealousy," Romans 11:11, which is the original purpose of Gentile salvation, Rom 11:11:11, and a main reason of the church's existance at all, which is also the reason for there even being a the pre-millenial "church" age). The reality that the Church is a threat to the existance of Jews remaining Jewish needs to diminish more and more. Christianity was never supposed to become a negative threat to Judaism's existance, with or without Messiah.

In short, the church should grow in maturuty to become someting that is a statement to Israel which is saying "Your people are my people. Your God is my God." Instead of this, the statement the church has historicall implied has been "My people are really "your" people. My God is your God, stupid!"


Hello Eliyahu,

I was confronted with a situation just like you explain above. If you follow some of my posts, you will understand how the LORD has worked on my heart concerning the Jewishness of the Gospel. I describe myself as follows: born and raised Catholic, with an Evangelical heart and Jewish roots. Thus my walk with the LORD is somewhat complicated, especially the "Jewish" aspect of it. The Holy Spirit led me to attend Synagogue from 1998 - 1999. (I believe my heritage four hundred +years ago was Jewish). Below, I quote from my website www.watchandpray.com under the page Short stories - "Are you a foreigner or one of us?" You might find this interesting, Eliyahu, since it really ties in directly to your understanding of Scriture, but judge for yourself:

A girlfriend invited me to attend the Chanukah Dinner on 12/13/1998. The Rabbi just had another child - NOAH - I held NOAH in my arms and said a quiet prayer over him. Then it happened. (Before I entered the Synagogue, I said a quiet prayer: "Lord bring to me who you want me to talk to". I was sitting at the end of a long table and Rabbi Goldberger was seated back to back to me... God's sense of humour).

An older Jewish gentleman, Mr. Goldfarb, approached me with this question: "Do you believe JESUS is the Messiah?"
I was stunned but quickly answered :"Absolutely! I'll prove it to you!" I brought the New Testament in Hebrew with me, opened it to MATTHEW 12:8 : "For the Son of Man is LORD of the SABBATH." Then I asked Mr Goldfarb: "Don't you keep the SABBATH HOLY?" He said: "Of course! I'm a Jew!" To which I answered: "Then here it says that "HE is your LORD!" With that I put the New Testament away.

Now Mr. Goldfarb wanted to know everything that I knew about Judaism and he got really excited, when I told him why glass is always kosher. Most Jewish People know that glass is kosher and does not have to be brought for the Mikveh, (Jewish Purifications/Blessing of the Shabbat Dishes), but they don't know why. The LORD told me: "Because it (glass) has already gone through the fire" which then I connected to the Holocaust. That made perfect sense to Mr. Goldfarb and he was listening intently to my explanations why we should be interested in keeping the Feasts of the Jewish Calendar, such as Passover, Shavuot, Feast of Tabernacles.
Mr. Goldfarb got very excited, and before he left he said : "But you would not convert anybody, would you?"
The Holy Spirit guided my answer: "What do you want to convert to? Y'shua is a Jew! He did what you do! You don't have to convert, all you have to do is accept HIM as the Messiah!" At that Mr. Goldfarb turned away and I could see that he knew HIS MESSIAH, The Holy One of Israel. "What is His name? And what is His Sons Name (Proverb 30:4) Surely you know?" HIS strong Name is: Y'SHUA HA-MASHIACH.

Now, I'm the one who needs to talk to Rabbi Goldberger about conversion. I'm the one who has to convert to Judaism, that is why I am in that Synagogue I thought. The next morning I got hold of Rabbi Goldberger by telephone and I nervously said: "Rabbi Goldberger, I sent you my Testimony titled "The Spirit and the Bride". The Rabbi replied that he received it and "read some of it" - I continued: "I would like to talk to you about conversion". To which Rabbi Goldberger said: "Do you believe that Jesus is THE MESSIAH?" Within 12 hours I'm asked this exact same question twice, but I cannot renounce you, LORD, I prayed quietly. So with all my conviction I said: "Well, absolutely, HE is a Jewish Man you know!"

To which the Rabbi said : "We don't believe that God has a son, we don't believe in three gods, we believe in ONE GOD, we don't believe in angels and life after death. So if you want to convert, you must renounce JESUS".
I was stunned and wondered why the LORD would direct my steps to that Synagogue with our beliefs being so very different! He did not want to meet with me because he was leaving to visit some "Swiss Friends" which I thought was God's sense of humour since I am orginally from Switzerland. " End of quote.

Eliyahu, the LORD not only led me to that Synagogue on Hanukkah 1998, but kept sending me back, and back, and back, always witnessing to Rabbi Goldberger about Y'SHUA - our LORD & SAVIOR. As a matter of fact, the first time I attended a full Shabbat morning Service, on 12/26/1998, the readings were from Ezekiel 37:15-28- Do I have to say anymore?

The Jewish New Year in 1999 fell on 9/11 (I connected that dated to Amos 9:11 and Psalm 119:119 in a letter to Rabbi Goldberger which I wrote beginning of September 1999 and then after Simchat Torah which I attended with my Father, Karl Aschwanden, in 1999, I asked Rabbi Goldberger to accept Y'SHUA as Messiah (quoting Acts 9, Saul (Rabbi Chaim) receive your sight (translated: accept Y'shua as Messiah), which prompted Rabbi Goldberger to expel me from attending Shabbat Services. Thus the HOly SPirit asked me to return to the Catholic Church - OLL, MOund - www.ourladyofthelake.com with the roof the shape of a 6 pointed Star of David, but they call it the "Star of the Sea" for Mother Mary - where I have been worshipping ever since. We are praying daily for Peace to Jerusalem and for conversion of the Jewish People. May the LORD hear and answer. Jeremiah 3:33 : "Call to ME and I will answer you; I will tell to you things great beyond reach of your knowledge."
I would be interested to learn more about your faith walk. Shabbat Shalom!

Shalom to Jerusalem, the Holy Land and all who follow HIS WAY
Monique

[TheForgiven]

Hello White. I thank you for sharing your story with us. That was pretty touching. If only your Jewish friend knew that there is but one God. There's not such thing as three Gods, for God is one and Him shall you serve. But God revealed Himself in many ways, as the author of Hebrews testifies.

Thomas said, "Show us the Father and we will believe..." Jesus replied, "How can you say 'show us the Father'? Have I not been with you long enough, Thomas"?

Jesus and the Father are one and the same. Jesus was God incarnated into the flesh, being humbled and born through the virgin. But God is also not limited in existence, with the ability to be everywhere, anytime, in all, and through all. Jesus is not sitting at daddy's right hand; that's a figure applied to the dominate hand of mankind; the right hand. Thus all the works done by God are through Jesus, who is the figurative right hand of God.

Hear O Israel, for the Lord your God is one!

Joe

[eliyahu]

Hi White. Nice to meat you. I enjoyed your post and visited your site. I will take the time to read those things soon. Your site was very Christlike- most of it was "coming soon!" lol! :lol: Just a joke appropriate for this forum. lol. Talk again later.

[TheForgiven]

most of it was "coming soon!" lol! Just a joke appropriate for this forum. lol. Talk again later.

:bounce: I actually liked that. That was cute my friend. :D I only home it wasn't as soon as the millennium's. :lol:

Joe

[Brother Les]

#7 12-29-2007, 11:44 PM
eliyahu
Member Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 50



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Richard. I've got nothing to do right now so its a great opportunity to chat. I will try the quotes thing.
Think about it. Do you really believe that God would honor the Old Covenant with a bunch of people that rejected the death of His Son?
How do I use the quotation feature?



If you would read your Bible a little more (instead of the newspaper), you would see that God blinded them and made them deaf on purpose.


Isa 6:8 ¶ Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here [am] I; send me.


Isa 6:9 ¶ And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.


Isa 6:10 Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.


Isa 6:11 ¶ Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:


Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


Mat 13:16 But blessed [are] your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.


Mat 13:17 For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous [men] have desired to see [those things] which ye see, and have not seen [them]; and to hear [those things] which ye hear, and have not heard [them].

Act 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,


Act 28:26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:


Act 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and [that] they will hear it

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded


Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.


Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:


Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.


Rom 11:11 ¶ I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but [rather] through their fall salvation [is come] unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.



Scripture is full of examples of how God was to Blind Apostate Israel, in order to fulfill what the Apostle Paul calls 'mysteries of Scripture'....the coming into The Hose of David....The 'Rebuilding of The Tabernacle (house) of David....the Gentiles coming home to God....Gentiles, who were once 'a' people and not 'a' people....Gentiles...The House of Israel, who were swept away by the Assyrians and made 'as' gentiles....coming home to RE-marry Jesus/God.


Brother Les

[eliyahu]

Hi Bro Les,
I appreciate your words. I think that i am in agreement but to be brutally honest I cannot tell what you are getting at. Maybe your interpretation of those things is different than others who believe the scriptures. I am not sure what you are saying.

[Brother Les]

eliyahu posted
That is true. But for a person to enter into the new covenant one must believe in Jesus and His words. It is all one package. His death ratified/made the new covenant. One would not beleive and follow Jesus and yet reject the new covenant in His blood.

eliyahu,
The sacrifice of Jesus Christ/God was to 'end'...'fulfill'...the Old Covenant. From Gods view point as the Husband of 'Israel/Judauh.....When the 'husband' 'died', the Sinai marriage contract was deemed an 'open' contract....God would 'no longer' have ANY relations with Old Covenant 'Israel/Judauh.



eliyahu Hi Bro Les,
I appreciate your words. I think that i am in agreement but to be brutally honest I cannot tell what you are getting at. Maybe your interpretation of those things is different than others who believe the scriptures. I am not sure what you are saying.
Today 01:37 AM


I have been reading some of your posts on this thread and I don't think that you really 'understand' what 'you' are talking about. You seem so unsure and are having a hard time explaining your position. If you want I can help you and explain what the beliefs and positions of Pre-mil Dispensationalist are. As it may be easier to give you a rebuttlal on your 'position', if you 'understand' your 'position' better.

Let me go back to the post that I pulled up
You said

Think about it. Do you really believe that God would honor the Old Covenant with a bunch of people that rejected the death of His Son?

Now, The Temple Worship Cultus was 'waxing old and fading away'....The verses that I pulled up stated...many times...that God was going to 'blind' that first century people who were not of 'The Elect Rement'. Isaih said the blindfness would happen and many of the New Testament writers said that it was happening in the first century....'They' rejected God/Jesus...because it WAS GODS WILL!!!! The Jews of the first century who Became The Sect of The Way and many other Jews who came into the Jerusalem Church were THE ONLY ONES SUPPOSE TO BE "SAVED"....God then 'HONORED" the 'terms' of the Old Covenant in AD 70, by destroying the Temple and The City of Jerusalem....The ONLY 'Israel' that was still there are those who are Jewish and Gentile Christian (Messiahtains).


Brother Les

[eliyahu]

Hi Les,

Now I understand what you are saying more. As for that last quote you quoted, it was RAM's. I was trying to quote him when I put that on my post. I would never say that.

I am pre-mil. I am definitely not in any sense Calvanistic or anything like what I would call "Divine fate." I am also not really that dispensational like the pre-tribbers. I am a futurist and pre-mil but do not confuse me to be a run of the mill Assembly of God, etc dispensationalist. I did come out of that. I grew up in that vein. I am not a Tim LaHey or John Hagee subscriber at all.

But to say that God ultimately desired to damn anyone, unbelieving Israel or anyone, is ultimately to charge God with evil. There is no way to theologically wiggle around that as far as I have ever seen. To somehow make God to be the sole author of someone's damnation is to make Him out to be worse than the Devil and no better than any Canaanite god. That is not a good God. I definitely believe in absolute free will AND the grace of God. Free will is part of the very image of God which humanity is. That cannot be removed from humanity or they cease to be the image of God and to be human.

Predestination is the way that some interpret it becomes an easy way to solve the mystery of Israel and the church without having to wrestle through various things.

I actually do understand what I am talking about. But since we are being so frank, I have difficulty conversing with people who re-interpret what I say to mean something else. This is actually a difficult topic to explain. Peter can admit that Paul's letters are difficult. We should be humble enough to admit the same of the mysteries of God. If it took mature people like the apostles and prophets to reveal the mystery of the gospel to by revelation, than we should not think that those revelations can be easily ascertained from subscribing to whatever systematic theologies we feel comfortable with. It takes a humble and hungry lifestyle of faith in the revealer of mysteries. It takes dependance upon Jesus and His body. WE all see in part, not fully.

Everyone was and is "supposed" to be saved. God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Simple, indescriminate, unconditional love for every man.

[Brother Les]

eliyahu
I am pre-mil. I am definitely not in any sense Calvanistic or anything like what I would call "Divine fate." I am also not really that dispensational like the pre-tribbers. I am a futurist and pre-mil but do not confuse me to be a run of the mill Assembly of God, etc dispensationalist. I did come out of that. I grew up in that vein. I am not a Tim LaHey or John Hagee subscriber at all.

I deeply apologise for thinking and posting that you were in my mind a despensationalist. My error. I respect your 'pre-mil' stance and see how you get there.


But to say that God ultimately desired to damn anyone, unbelieving Israel or anyone, is ultimately to charge God with evil. There is no way to theologically wiggle around that as far as I have ever seen. To somehow make God to be the sole author of someone's damnation is to make Him out to be worse than the Devil and no better than any Canaanite god. That is not a good God. I definitely believe in absolute free will AND the grace of God. Free will is part of the very image of God which humanity is. That cannot be removed from humanity or they cease to be the image of God and to be human.


Scripture states that God 'created all things', He creats 'Life' and He makes 'Death', He creats all 'good' and He makes 'evil'...(paraphrase, it would take time that I don't have to find the verses, but this is 'the drift'). God is God and He makes 'the rules'. 'We' have all 'sinned'and 'deserve' 'death'....not 'life'...Jesus said that, those who come to me are sent by The Father....Many are 'called'...but not 'all'....'The hearts of 'man' are contunually 'evil'...man follows after his own 'lusts'.. (these are scripture paraphrases) Grace Can 'save' all of man kind, but you have to,believe, 'ask'..repent of your sins....Many will not take those steps...

If you believe and teach that 'all' man kind...'sometime, down the road', will reconcile with God....you are believing and teaching a type of universal salvation and that is not Biblical. (First I say you 'are' a dispensationalist ((my bad)) and now I am saying you might be a universalist,which is a form of predestination correct me if I am wrong)


I look forward to studing with you more.

Blessings
Brother Les

[White]

Hi White. Nice to meat you. I enjoyed your post and visited your site. I will take the time to read those things soon. Your site was very Christlike- most of it was "coming soon!" lol! :lol: Just a joke appropriate for this forum. lol. Talk again later.

Hi Eliyahu,

I like your take on my site - Coming soon - :yo: - lol - RIchard actually helped me with the site and I got stuck on the forum and forgot about it -
The real reason I started www.watchandpray.com was to encourage people to pray.

I was originally designing a "prayer watch" - watch and pray - based on Revelation 21 with the 12 foundation stones of the Apostles and the New Jerusalem - the 12 Tribes - coming down from Heaven and resting on the Foundations Stones of the Aposles. Thus the 12 + 12 are together.
The Prayer would be : Our Father to be prayed at least 5 times a day
preferrably 10 times as day.)
More Later
Shalom,
Monique

More later...
Shalom

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Brother Les,

eliyahu,
The sacrifice of Jesus Christ/God was to 'end'...'fulfill'...the Old Covenant. From Gods view point as the Husband of 'Israel/Judauh.....When the 'husband' 'died', the Sinai marriage contract was deemed an 'open' contract....God would 'no longer' have ANY relations with Old Covenant 'Israel/Judauh.

I agree. Well stated.



Think about it. Do you really believe that God would honor the Old Covenant with a bunch of people that rejected the death of His Son?

Now, The Temple Worship Cultus was 'waxing old and fading away'....The verses that I pulled up stated...many times...that God was going to 'blind' that first century people who were not of 'The Elect Rement'. Isaih said the blindfness would happen and many of the New Testament writers said that it was happening in the first century....'They' rejected God/Jesus...because it WAS GODS WILL!!!! The Jews of the first century who Became The Sect of The Way and many other Jews who came into the Jerusalem Church were THE ONLY ONES SUPPOSE TO BE "SAVED"....God then 'HONORED" the 'terms' of the Old Covenant in AD 70, by destroying the Temple and The City of Jerusalem....The ONLY 'Israel' that was still there are those who are Jewish and Gentile Christian (Messiahtains).

Brother Les
As noted by Eliyahu, I am the one who made that statement to which you responded. You and I apparently agree about what happened to the Jews, but not exactly why. I have a very different udnerstanding of the "hardening" of the Jews. I think it was much like Pharaoah. He was a sinner and God could have rightly killed him on the spot when He judged him as such. But He chose rather to keep him alive and to use him to proclaim the glory of His Name amongst the nations. He had to harden (strengthen) Pharaoh to withstand the display of Divine Judgment. Something similar happened with the Jews. God came to them and was rejected by some of them, and the ones who rejected Him were judged and then hardened in that state until 70 AD so God could publically pour out His wrath upon them and fulfill prophecy.

I think it is entirely wrong and unbiblical to suggest that God caused their unbelief by arbitrarily hardening their hearts against the Gospel. If you want to pursue this point, we should probably start another thread since its a very different topic than what we are trying to discuss here.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am pre-mil. I am definitely not in any sense Calvanistic or anything like what I would call "Divine fate." I am also not really that dispensational like the pre-tribbers. I am a futurist and pre-mil but do not confuse me to be a run of the mill Assembly of God, etc dispensationalist. I did come out of that. I grew up in that vein. I am not a Tim LaHey or John Hagee subscriber at all.

Its good to get a clearer idea of where you are coming from. Myself, I am (as you know) a preterist but I'm not "doctrinaire" at all. I don't fit into any particular preterist camp that I know of, though I tend towards what is usually described as "full preterism" because I am not aware of any prophecies (per se) that are yet to be fulfilled. But I also do not declare that there are no prophecies yet to be fulfilled because I don't know that either. I just stick pretty close to what I can prove from the clear teaching of Scripture. I follow that rule that nothing without two or three clear and mutually confirming passages should be taught as doctrine.


But to say that God ultimately desired to damn anyone, unbelieving Israel or anyone, is ultimately to charge God with evil. There is no way to theologically wiggle around that as far as I have ever seen. To somehow make God to be the sole author of someone's damnation is to make Him out to be worse than the Devil and no better than any Canaanite god. That is not a good God. I definitely believe in absolute free will AND the grace of God. Free will is part of the very image of God which humanity is. That cannot be removed from humanity or they cease to be the image of God and to be human.

100% agreement! :thumb:

You might be interested to review the thread where we discussed (and I successfully refuted as unbiblical, IMHO) the Calvinist Doctrine of Eternal Decrees (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36).


Predestination is the way that some interpret it becomes an easy way to solve the mystery of Israel and the church without having to wrestle through various things.

I don't see any mystery there at all. God tended His Olive Tree Israel and she blossomed into the Church. Unbelieving carnal children of Abraham were cut off, and believing Gentiles were grafted in. Seems simple, clear, biblical, and full explanation to me. Of course, I do not mean to imply that there are not "mysteries" and "things hard to understand" in God's Word. I just don't see a problem with understanding the relation between carnal Israel and the Church.


I actually do understand what I am talking about. But since we are being so frank, I have difficulty conversing with people who re-interpret what I say to mean something else. This is actually a difficult topic to explain. Peter can admit that Paul's letters are difficult. We should be humble enough to admit the same of the mysteries of God. If it took mature people like the apostles and prophets to reveal the mystery of the gospel to by revelation, than we should not think that those revelations can be easily ascertained from subscribing to whatever systematic theologies we feel comfortable with. It takes a humble and hungry lifestyle of faith in the revealer of mysteries. It takes dependance upon Jesus and His body. WE all see in part, not fully.

Again, well stated, and 100% agreement to those blue words.


Everyone was and is "supposed" to be saved. God wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Simple, indescriminate, unconditional love for every man.
Amen! :pray:

Richard

[eliyahu]

I deeply apologise for thinking and posting that you were in my mind a despensationalist. My error. I respect your 'pre-mil' stance and see how you get there.




Scripture states that God 'created all things', He creats 'Life' and He makes 'Death', He creats all 'good' and He makes 'evil'...(paraphrase, it would take time that I don't have to find the verses, but this is 'the drift'). God is God and He makes 'the rules'. 'We' have all 'sinned'and 'deserve' 'death'....not 'life'...Jesus said that, those who come to me are sent by The Father....Many are 'called'...but not 'all'....'The hearts of 'man' are contunually 'evil'...man follows after his own 'lusts'.. (these are scripture paraphrases) Grace Can 'save' all of man kind, but you have to,believe, 'ask'..repent of your sins....Many will not take those steps...

If you believe and teach that 'all' man kind...'sometime, down the road', will reconcile with God....you are believing and teaching a type of universal salvation and that is not Biblical. (First I say you 'are' a dispensationalist ((my bad)) and now I am saying you might be a universalist,which is a form of predestination correct me if I am wrong)


I look forward to studing with you more.

Blessings
Brother Les

No offence taken Les. Its A OK. :thumb: I am not in any way a universalist either. Whew! I am glad i'm not too. Never met one.

I appreciate scripture paraphrases. I know where many of them are referring to. I am not a KJV only type of guy when it comes to quoting scriptures. Most people who are familiar with the Bible should know what another is getting at.

About your small gist of your theology of salvation... When you got to the part:

"all 'sinned'and 'deserve' 'death'....not 'life'...Jesus said that, those who come to me are sent by The Father....Many are 'called'...but not 'all'...."

I believe that the verses in John 6:37,45 you cited may be clarified by Dan 7:14 "and to him was given... a kingdom... that all peoples... might serve him." The people who were (old covenant times) in a saving relationship with the Father by faith (Mat 16:17) would receive revelation of who the Son was when they met him or heard the gospel of the kingdom (of Dan 7:14).

The verses in John 6:37,45 need to be considered in this context. Those verses cannot be soundly used in referrence to any form of predestination.

I enjoy talking to you also. God bless.

[eliyahu]

I don't see any mystery there at all. God tended His Olive Tree Israel and she blossomed into the Church.

I do not mean to imply that there are not "mysteries" and "things hard to understand" in God's Word. I just don't see a problem with understanding the relation between carnal Israel and the Church.

Again, well stated, and 100% agreement to those blue words.

Amen! :pray:

Richard

Glad to hear from ya!:yo: Well, I don't excactly see the olive tree as having blossomed into the church in that way. But you already know that.

The whole bit I said about "mystery" is not meaning that the NT Mysteries are forever shrouded in the unknown. I mean that the Mysteries in Paul's writings are things previously unrevealed involved with the new covenant which have since been revealed to us (in the Bible) largly through Paul.

If we can read Romans 9-11 and get to Rom 11:33 without having the same rapturous ascent of wonder and worship arising from our spirit, then I will say that we have definitely missed the thing that God was saying!

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable are His ways!..."

I believe that the mystery of Israel and the church is one of the most vital and unprobed wells of revelation for the church. A great book about is is available free online at benisrael.org under writings, online books by Art Katz, The Mystery Of Israel And The Church. It has changed my life and the lives of many people I know. Check it out. Be warned, it is meat. It is heavy at times. Art Katz is highly respected as a genuine prophetic voice for the last 30+ years in many circles of believers around the world. Unfortunately, he died very recently. He was my friend and a father in the faith to me.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Glad to hear from ya!:yo: Well, I don't excactly see the olive tree as having blossomed into the church in that way. But you already know that.

Yes, I know that. And I would be delighted if you wanted to explain how you understand the Olive Tree theology of Romans 11. As I see it, a "branch" (person) is attached to the Olive Tree if and only if that person is a Christian. This then implies that the Olive Tree is the Church. It seems so simple and clear to me, especially when read in light of John 15. Where does the confusion enter?


If we can read Romans 9-11 and get to Rom 11:33 without having the same rapturous ascent of wonder and worship arising from our spirit, then I will say that we have definitely missed the thing that God was saying!

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable are His ways!..."

Excellent! :congrats: Very well stated.


I believe that the mystery of Israel and the church is one of the most vital and unprobed wells of revelation for the church. A great book about is is available free online at benisrael.org under writings, online books by Art Katz, The Mystery Of Israel And The Church. It has changed my life and the lives of many people I know. Check it out. Be warned, it is meat. It is heavy at times. Art Katz is highly respected as a genuine prophetic voice for the last 30+ years in many circles of believers around the world. Unfortunately, he died very recently. He was my friend and a father in the faith to me.
Thanks bro - I'll definitely check it out and get back to you with what I find.

God bless!

Richard

[Brother Les]

RAM poste
As noted by Eliyahu, I am the one who made that statement to which you responded. You and I apparently agree about what happened to the Jews, but not exactly why. I have a very different udnerstanding of the "hardening" of the Jews. I think it was much like Pharaoah. He was a sinner and God could have rightly killed him on the spot when He judged him as such. But He chose rather to keep him alive and to use him to proclaim the glory of His Name amongst the nations. He had to harden (strengthen) Pharaoh to withstand the display of Divine Judgment. Something similar happened with the Jews. God came to them and was rejected by some of them, and the ones who rejected Him were judged and then hardened in that state until 70 AD so God could publically pour out His wrath upon them and fulfill prophecy.

I think it is entirely wrong and unbiblical to suggest that God caused their unbelief by arbitrarily hardening their hearts against the Gospel. If you want to pursue this point, we should probably start another thread since its a very different topic than what we are trying to discuss here.

Richard


I agree with you Richard. types- anti-types. Pharoah - Jewish leadership...Pharooah 'could not change' and the same with the first century Jewish leadership....I was just giving a short answer. Those whos hearts were hardened had been on that path for many years and as we know from our own lives. Once something is set in motion, it may be hard to change direction. I don't think we need to pursue it.

Blessings
Brother Les

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree with you Richard. types- anti-types. Pharoah - Jewish leadership...Pharooah 'could not change' and the same with the first century Jewish leadership....I was just giving a short answer. Those whos hearts were hardened had been on that path for many years and as we know from our own lives. Once something is set in motion, it may be hard to change direction. I don't think we need to pursue it.

Blessings
Brother Les
Hi Brother Les,

I'm glad to let that side-issue rest for now too. The attempt to articulate the relation between God's sovereingty and our freedom could easily consume all our time and I think there are more interesting and important issues to explore right now. Not that I don't enjoy discussing that issue ... but there are only so many hours in a day.

God bless!

Richard

[eliyahu]

Hi Richard,

As for the Q about my take on the olive tree analogy, here is my view:
Romans 11:1-26a. KJV
'1 I 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. Know ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But 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. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded 8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them: 10 let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, and bow down their back alway. 11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. 12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? 13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 14 if by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them. 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. 24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? God’s mercy on all 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. 26 And so all Israel shall be saved:'The olive tree is analogous of the one people of God, Jew and Gentile, fed by the same life giving sap. The sap is their relationship with the Father.

That tree took root in Abraham’s time. Its growth came out of God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. These men are the fathers or patriarchs of Israel. Part of the promises was that salvation and blessing would one day come to the Gentiles. This would make Abraham a father to those Gentiles as well (You (now fulfilled in Messiah). 'You shall be a blessing' Gen 12:2. This blessing was to be toward others outside the nation of Israel which Abraham would be the father of.

Gentiles are called 'wild olive branches.' We had no promises from God, covenants with Him, hope for salvation, scriptures, effectually no reason for hope. We were separated from the promises and covenants with Abraham. When Jesus ascended and commanded the Jewish apostles to make disciples of all the nations of Gentiles, the invitation was made for the church to receive Gentiles. Later on in Acts 10:42-45, Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit while still being uncircumcised in the flesh Gentiles. The promise to Abraham for 'all nations' being 'blessed' began to see fulfillment.
Romans 11:18, 'boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.' The word 'bearest' is the Greek word 'bastazo.' It means 'to bear, carry, lift up, support.' It is used of a person carrying a load, Mat 20:12, of a beast carrying a woman, Rev 17:7, of a pregnant womb, Luke 11:27. It denotes one subject completely carrying another subject. Luke 11:27’s usage carries the nuance of life-giving nourishment in that support. This 'dependency for all nourishment' nuance is also used here in Romans 11:18.
Being made aware of their dependency upon the God who had made the promises to Israel (and not to Gentiles) and covenanted with them the new covenant, Gentiles are humbled before Israel. They have no room to take ownership of Israel’s new Covenant which they were graciously invited into by Israel’s God. The relationship Israel has with God 'bearest' them by faith.
So, Gentile believers are 'in grafted' into the tree of Israel. This results is sharing the divine life issuing out of the promises to the patriarchs now being fulfilled in Israel’s promised Messiah, the resurrected Jesus. Gentiles are part of the 'nations' being now 'blessed' through Abraham’s promised 'seed,' Jesus. Gentile’s faith 'in grafts' them, not physically enjoining themselves to Abraham through circumcision.
The unbelieving in Israel do not inherit the promised blessings to Abraham. They do, however, still inherit the curses pronounced in the law toward the disobedient unbelievers in Israel. After the resurrection of Jesus, the Jews who rejected Him were 'cut off' from the 'nourishing sap' of the root. That sap is, again, the life giving relationship with the Father by faith. The old covenant’s provisions of assurance of forgiveness found in the atoning sacrifices made at the temple annually were no longer necessary nor accepted as an expression of saving faith. The cross bridged the gap of Israel’s sin and sinful nature. Old covenant faith that once had saving power now no longer was sufficient after the substitutionary death of Israel’s representative Messiah. Now the new covenant was 'cut' with Israel through the sacrificial death of Jesus.
God, through Paul, urgently warned Gentile believers to 'fear' and 'take heed' of God’s condition of humble faith for salvation or God would likewise 'cut off' their in grafted branches as well. It was nothing but grace and mercy that brought Gentiles into a real, salvific connection with the olive tree, the faithful of God’s covenant people Israel.
So, Gentiles are still called 'wild branches' though grafted into the tree. Jews are called 'natural branches' weather having been cut off or not. Gentiles are called to fear from the example of Israel’s history with God. Gentiles are called Gentiles in Romans and indeed all of scripture. Jews and Israel are the physical descendants of Abraham in the whole Bible as well as Romans. The unbelieving Jews are not counted as the 'seed' inheriting the promises. The olive tree analogy explains how people who are not physically enjoined to Abraham through circumcision have been spiritually enjoined to him through Jesus, the one who fulfilled the promises to the 'seed.' This effectually makes Gentile believers counted as the 'seed' along with the believers in Israel whom received their risen Messiah and thus are inheriting the blessings promised to the seed.
Ephesians 2:11-21a
'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:'

In Jesus, believing Jews and Gentiles have been made 'one.' We are counted in the Messiah, who is one.

1 Cor 10:14b-17. 'Decide for yourselves if what I am saying is true. 16 When we bless the cup at the Lord’s Table, aren’t we sharing in the blood of Christ? And when we break the bread, aren’t we sharing in the body of Christ? 17 And though we are many, we all eat from one loaf of bread, showing that we are one body.'

We are always called 'we.' We are one in faith in Jesus. Galatians 3:26-29 '26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you (Jew or Gentile) as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (put faith in the gospel and being added to the kingdom now removed from Messiah rejecting part of Israel) 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.' These groupings listed were put in division from one another within the boundaries of the old covenant’s law. The law gave specific rules for Jews and the Gentile 'alien living among' them and even worshipping their God on various levels. The old covenant’s law divided men and women’s roles in worship. Only certain men could be priests. Originally all the men were to be priests. The law also gave rules concerning slavery and freedom from it in the theocracy. The new covenant eliminates different classes of God’s one newly united people in the person of Messiah. It does not eliminate circumcision, nor uncircumcision. It does not free the slaves or enslave the free. It does not androgonize men or women. It unites every person, in whatever condition they are in, into the one man, Jesus.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

As for the Q about my take on the olive tree analogy, here is my view:

Hi Eliyahu!

I want to thank you in advance for taking the time and effort to discuss this. It is very important to me because I think it is fundamental to a proper understanding of the relation between Israel and the Church.


Gentiles are called 'wild olive branches.' We had no promises from God, covenants with Him, hope for salvation, scriptures, effectually no reason for hope. We were separated from the promises and covenants with Abraham. When Jesus ascended and commanded the Jewish apostles to make disciples of all the nations of Gentiles, the invitation was made for the church to receive Gentiles. Later on in Acts 10:42-45, Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit while still being uncircumcised in the flesh Gentiles. The promise to Abraham for 'all nations' being 'blessed' began to see fulfillment.

Yep - we agree perfectly. And I am glad you understand that the "the invitation was made for the church to receive Gentiles" - that seems equivalent to me as saying that "the believing Gentiles were grafted in to the Olive Tree." That's why I see the Olive Tree as the Church, the True Israel which began as the believing remnant of ethnic Israel.


So, Gentile believers are 'in grafted' into the tree of Israel. This results is sharing the divine life issuing out of the promises to the patriarchs now being fulfilled in Israel’s promised Messiah, the resurrected Jesus. Gentiles are part of the 'nations' being now 'blessed' through Abraham’s promised 'seed,' Jesus. Gentile’s faith 'in grafts' them, not physically enjoining themselves to Abraham through circumcision.

This is where the language breaks down. Not all that are of Israel are Israel. So when you say that the Gentiles are grafted in to Israel, people get confused and think that has something to do with ethnic unbelieving Israel.


The unbelieving in Israel do not inherit the promised blessings to Abraham. They do, however, still inherit the curses pronounced in the law toward the disobedient unbelievers in Israel.

I disagree here. The only people who were subject to the curses in the Torah were those who were in the circumcision covnenant relation with God. The last of them died in the first century because that covenant ended with the coming of the New Covenant. So the "Jews" now are not "Jews" in the Biblical sense because they are not - indeed can not be - in covenant relation with God through the Torah.


After the resurrection of Jesus, the Jews who rejected Him were 'cut off' from the 'nourishing sap' of the root. That sap is, again, the life giving relationship with the Father by faith. The old covenant’s provisions of assurance of forgiveness found in the atoning sacrifices made at the temple annually were no longer necessary nor accepted as an expression of saving faith. The cross bridged the gap of Israel’s sin and sinful nature. Old covenant faith that once had saving power now no longer was sufficient after the substitutionary death of Israel’s representative Messiah. Now the new covenant was 'cut' with Israel through the sacrificial death of Jesus.

Amen. Well stated.


So, Gentiles are still called 'wild branches' though grafted into the tree. Jews are called 'natural branches' weather having been cut off or not. Gentiles are called to fear from the example of Israel’s history with God. Gentiles are called Gentiles in Romans and indeed all of scripture. Jews and Israel are the physical descendants of Abraham in the whole Bible as well as Romans. The unbelieving Jews are not counted as the 'seed' inheriting the promises. The olive tree analogy explains how people who are not physically enjoined to Abraham through circumcision have been spiritually enjoined to him through Jesus, the one who fulfilled the promises to the 'seed.' This effectually makes Gentile believers counted as the 'seed' along with the believers in Israel whom received their risen Messiah and thus are inheriting the blessings promised to the seed.

<snip>

In Jesus, believing Jews and Gentiles have been made 'one.' We are counted in the Messiah, who is one.

I agree with all of that. It sounds to me that you agree that the Olive Tree is the Church.


The law gave specific rules for Jews and the Gentile 'alien living among' them and even worshipping their God on various levels. The old covenant’s law divided men and women’s roles in worship. Only certain men could be priests. Originally all the men were to be priests.

And now all Christians are priests, for were are a nation of priests as declared in both 1 Pet and Rev. Does that not prove that the primary definitional promise given to Israel in Exo 19:5 has been fulfilled in the Church?


The law also gave rules concerning slavery and freedom from it in the theocracy. The new covenant eliminates different classes of God’s one newly united people in the person of Messiah. It does not eliminate circumcision, nor uncircumcision. It does not free the slaves or enslave the free. It does not androgonize men or women. It unites every person, in whatever condition they are in, into the one man, Jesus.
This is still the sticking point. What special roles does the Bible define for the Jewish as opposed to the Gentile Christian?

Richard

[Brother Les]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eliyahu
The unbelieving in Israel do not inherit the promised blessings to Abraham. They do, however, still inherit the curses pronounced in the law toward the disobedient unbelievers in Israel.

RAM postsI disagree here. The only people who were subject to the curses in the Torah were those who were in the circumcision covnenant relation with God. The last of them died in the first century because that covenant ended with the coming of the New Covenant. So the "Jews" now are not "Jews" in the Biblical sense because they are not - indeed can not be - in covenant relation with God through the Torah.


I wish I had more time to go down eliyahus post, I don't, but I wanted to speak on this point....THERE IS NO 'CURSE' ON 'JEWS' TODAY.....from God...maybe from man...but NOT From God. That secular nation in the middleeast in not Old Covenant Israel

At Jesus 'trial' 'The People' cried out His blood on our head and on our childrens heads....that is where it ended....The 70AD was The Judgement that 'they' cryed out for on them and their children.....It does not go on 'forever and ever', They asked for 'Judgement and 'they' were Judged....and it is 'over'....nuf' said


Brother Les

[eliyahu]

Hi Eliyahu!

I want to thank you in advance for taking the time and effort to discuss this. It is very important to me because I think it is fundamental to a proper understanding of the relation between Israel and the Church. Richard

You are welcome. Likewise to you. Cut and paste helps a lot as well. Time is precious. But so is our family in Christ.


the church to receive[/COLOR] Gentiles" - that seems equivalent to me as saying that "the believing Gentiles were grafted in to the Olive Tree." That's why I see the Olive Tree as the Church, the True Israel which began as the believing remnant of ethnic Israel.

The olive tree picture bears chronology. The co-existing union of the natural branches and the wild ones both drawing sap together from the holy root is the new phenomenon called the church. It is not a totally new tree called the church. It is a tree now pruned and with the new wild branches grafted in. That is called the church. The church is thus made of natural branches and in grafted wild ones. That is, Jews of faith and Gentiles of faith. Both are supported by the root- the promises to the fathers of natural Israel.

This is why "28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Romans 11:28-29.

In relation to the gospel, the unbelieving Israel rejects salvation by faith in the Messiah's New Covenant. They (in Paul’s day) hold to and/or preach salvation through the old covenant works apart from Jesus altogether. In any case, they resist and reject they gospel. They, theologically, are "enemies of the gospel."

This has moved the Jewish people to form a Rabbinical Judaism which is opposed to the concept of the trinity, Jesus' Messiahship, etc. Their "election" in Rom 11:28 is based on their ethnic heritage as descendants of Abraham through Isaac. I will get to this below.

"They are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts as calling of God are without repentance." "They" are the unbelieving Israel today even after AD 70. Their "fathers" are spiritually also the church's (both Jew and Gentile) fathers (1 Cor 10:1) through our faith in the new covenant with "Israel" (Jer 31:31). 1 Cor 10 gives examples of the church’s 'fathers' from unbelieving, disobedient Israel of the past. This is NT evidence that Jeremiah's "Israel" includes Jews who are faithful to God and those who were not. You cannot superimpose something you believe from the NT onto the old test and contradict the original meaning.

Israel’s repeated disobedience (sin and the sinful nature) is why God would need to make a New Covenant with them (Jer 31:32). It would "not" be "like the covenant... which they broke." The sinful nature was the problem with the old covenant. When the sinful nature was put to death and Israel was resurrected with a holy nature in union with Messiah, the Torah was "written on their hearts," Jer 31:33. That is, the hearts of those in Israel who would believe and receive.

"They are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable/ without repentance." This also validates that the unbelieving in Israel who are "cut off" still have a national hope promised to them as physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac. "They" are the unbelievers. Their calling to be "a light to the Gentiles" is still in effect. That God will make them "a light to the nations" will yet come to pass. These are some of their "callings" God has not repented of. What are the "gifts" unbelieving Israel has?
"3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren (in reference to the unbelieving Jews), 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; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 9:3-5.

Why is Paul wishing himself accursed from Christ for his fellow unbelieving Jews? Was it out of his human compassion for them just because he knew many of them and they were coincidently his nation? Or was it the Holy Spirit within him expressing His unconditional covenant love/faithfulness for all unbelieving Israel? I unapologetically assert the later. Why do I? Because Paul then affirms that 'theirs are the covenants…' This is inclusive language is fully applicable to the new covenant with Israel, here as belonging to unbelieving Israel (not implying that they have entered the new covt’, only that is was cut with them, Jer 31:31). The Holy Spirit in Paul sees a definite (however dismal before great) future for unbelieving Israel. The Spirit is in Christ praying for Israel’s national salvation to this day and He will see it in the future.


This is where the language breaks down. Not all that are of Israel are Israel. So when you say that the Gentiles are grafted in to Israel, people get confused and think that has something to do with ethnic unbelieving Israel.

Paul qualifies the validity of unbelieving ethnic Israel in Romans 9:3-5. And furthermore, where Paul said 'not all Israel are Israel' he was making a particular point, wasn’t he? His point was that the promises only are fulfilled in the faithful remnant. He was not making a blanket reinterpretation of the entire OT’s usage of the word "Israel." That would mean that the word "Israel" would have meant something different before Paul penned Romans. Paul would be redefining God’s word. It would be like a Back to the Future paradox. THIS IS WHY I SAY THAT PRETERISTS INTERPRET THE BIBLE BACKWARDS.

Gentile believers are not grafted into unbelieving ethnic Israel. The unbelievers in Israel were 'cut off.' They did not then cease to be Israel. They ceased to qualify for the promised blessings to Abraham’s seed once Jesus died and rose and once they rejected Him and the new covt with them. God is not requiring old covenant faith from Israel any longer. He is requiring new covenant faith from them. That is how they are "cut off." They are in an unbroken relationship with God which they cannot escape through unbelief. Their relationship with God dramatically changed at the cross and the empty tomb.

This is why 'Israel' in Jer 31 includes the unbelieving Jews. God was going to eliminate the sinful nature for Israel and "write His Torah on their hearts." Once that was accomplished, the still unbelieving in Israel were not in a condition to inherit the promised which are summed up in the Messiah, unless they themselves are included in Him by faith. That is why God will deal with their hearts, turn their hearts to Christ and then fulfill all his promises to ethnic national Israel as yet unfulfilled. After the time of "Jacob’s trouble" (Jer 30:6) when Jesus physically returns as promised (Mat 24:29-30), there will be nothing left of ethnic Israel but a remnant of faith (Zech 13:8-9). In this way 'all Israel' will be saved in the future (Isa 10:22-23, Hoseah 1:10).


And now all Christians are priests, for were are a nation of priests as declared in both 1 Pet and Rev. Does that not prove that the primary definitional promise given to Israel in Ex. 19:5 has been fulfilled in the Church?

Yes, we are now all priests.1 Peter and Rev apply that promise to the church because the church consists of the faithful remnant of Israel and in grafted Gentiles sharing in eternal life issuing from the promise to Abraham fulfilled in Christ. But they do not as such reinterpret the original meaning of that original statement. It was made to all of ethnic Israel, most of whom rejected the offer to come up the mountain and become priests. Consequently the priesthood was limited to Jewish men. Still later the priesthood was limited to certain Levite men. Later on even that was (arguably) limited in Ezekiel. Pauls point was that in the new covenant all those numerous restrictive old covenant limitations are transcended and nullified in the resurrection of Messiah. Now we are a reborn new humanity, 'a royal priesthood, a holy nation…' Now we are 'one in Christ.' And that was Paul’s point in 'in Christ there is no male or female.' That, again, does not eliminate our being' male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile.'

[eliyahu]

Hi Eliyahu!

I want to thank you in advance for taking the time and effort to discuss this. It is very important to me because I think it is fundamental to a proper understanding of the relation between Israel and the Church. Richard

You are welcome. Likewise to you. Cut and paste helps a lot as well. Time is precious. But is our family in Christ.


the church to receive[/COLOR] Gentiles" - that seems equivalent to me as saying that "the believing Gentiles were grafted in to the Olive Tree." That's why I see the Olive Tree as the Church, the True Israel which began as the believing remnant of ethnic Israel.

The olive tree picture bears chronology. The co-existing union of the natural branches and the wild ones both drawing sap together from the holy root is the new phenomenon called the church. It is not a totally new tree called the church. It is a tree now pruned and with the new wild branches grafted in. That is called the church. The church is thus made of natural branches and in grafted wild ones. That is, Jews of faith and Gentiles of faith. Both are supported by the root- the promises to the fathers of natural Israel.

This is why "28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Romans 11:28-29.

In relation to the gospel, the unbelieving Israel rejects salvation by faith in the Messiah's New Covenant. They (in Paul’s day) hold to and/or preach salvation through the old covenant works apart from Jesus altogether. In any case, they resist and reject they gospel. They, theologically, are "enemies of the gospel."

This has moved the Jewish people to form a Rabbinical Judaism which is opposed to the concept of the trinity, Jesus' Messiahship, etc. Their "election" in Rom 11:28 is based on their ethnic heritage as descendants of Abraham through Isaac. I will get to this below.

"They are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts as calling of God are without repentance." "They" are the unbelieving Israel today even after AD 70. Their "fathers" are spiritually also the church's (both Jew and Gentile) fathers (1 Cor 10:1) through faith in the new covenant with "Israel" (Jer 31:31). 1 Cor 10 gives examples of the church’s 'fathers' from unbelieving, disobedient Israel of the past. This is NT evidence that Jeremiah's "Israel" includes Jews who are faithful to God and those who were not.

Israel’s repeated disobedience (sin and the sinful nature) is why God would need to make a New Covenant with them (Jer 31:32). It would "not" be "like the covenant... which they broke." The sinful nature was the problem with the old covenant. When the sinful nature was put to death and Israel was resurrected with a holy nature in union with Messiah, the Torah was "written on their hearts," Jer 31:33. That is, the hearts of those in Israel who would believe and receive.

"They are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable/ without repentance." This also validates that the unbelieving in Israel who are "cut off" still have a national hope promised to them as physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac. "They" are the unbelievers. Their calling to be "a light to the Gentiles" is still in effect. That God will make them "a light to the nations" will yet come to pass. These are some of their "callings" God has not repented of. What are the "gifts" unbelieving Israel has?
"3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren (in reference to the unbelieving Jews), 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; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 9:3-5.

Why is Paul wishing himself accursed from Christ for his fellow unbelieving Jews? Was it out of his human compassion for them just because he knew many of them and they were coincidently his nation? Or was it the Holy Spirit within him expressing His unconditional covenant love/faithfulness for all unbelieving Israel? I unapologetically assert the later. Why do I? Because Paul then affirms that 'theirs are the covenants…' This is inclusive language is fully applicable to the new covenant with Israel, here as belonging to unbelieving Israel (not implying that they have entered the new covt’, only that is was cut with them). The Holy Spirit in Paul sees a definite future for unbelieving Israel. The Spirit is in Christ praying for Israel’s national salvation to this day and He will see it in the future.


This is where the language breaks down. Not all that are of Israel are Israel. So when you say that the Gentiles are grafted in to Israel, people get confused and think that has something to do with ethnic unbelieving Israel.

Paul qualifies the validity of unbelieving ethnic Israel in Romans 9:3-5. And furthermore, where Paul said 'not all Israel are Israel' he was making a particular point, wasn’t he? His point was that the promises only are fulfilled in the faithful remnant. He was not making a blanket reinterpretation of the entire OT’s usage of the word Israel. That would mean that the word Israel would have meant something different before Paul penned Romans. Paul would be redefining God’s word. It would be like a Back to the Future paradox. THIS IS WHY I SAY THAT PRETERISTS INTERPRET THE BIBLE BACKWARDS.

Gentile believers are not grafted into unbelieving ethnic Israel. The unbelievers in Israel were 'cut off.' They did not then cease to be Israel. They ceased to qualify for the promised blessings to Abraham’s seed once Jesus died and rose and once they rejected Him and the new covt with them. God is not requiring old covenant faith from Israel any longer. He is requiring new covenant faith from them. They are in an unbroken relationship with God which they cannot escape through unbelief. Their relationship with God dramatically changed at the cross and the empty tomb.

This is why 'Israel' in Jer 31 includes the unbelieving Jews. God was going to eliminate the sinful nature for Israel and write His Torah on their hearts. Once that was accomplished, the still unbelieving in Israel were not in a condition to inherit the promised which are summed up in the Messiah, unless they themselves are included in Him. That is why God will deal with their hearts, turn their hearts to Christ and then fulfill all his promises to ethnic national Israel yet unfulfilled. After the time of Jacob’s trouble when Jesus physically returns as promised, there will be nothing left of ethnic Israel but a remnant of faith. In this way 'all Israel' will be save in the future.


And now all Christians are priests, for were are a nation of priests as declared in both 1 Pet and Rev. Does that not prove that the primary definitional promise given to Israel in Ex. 19:5 has been fulfilled in the Church?

Yes, we are now all priests.1 Peter and Rev apply that promise to the church because the church consists of the faithful remnant of Israel and in grafted Gentiles sharing in eternal life issuing from the promise to Abraham fulfilled in Christ. But they do not as such reinterpret the original meaning of that original statement. It was made to all of ethnic Israel, most of whom rejected the offer to come up the mountain and become priests. Consequently the priesthood was limited to Jewish men. Still later the priesthood was limited to certain Levite men. Later on even that was (arguably) limited in Ezekiel. In the new covenant all those restrictive old covenant limitations are transcended and nullified in the resurrection of Messiah. Now we are a new humanity, 'a royal priesthood, a holy nation…' Now we are 'one in Christ.' And that was Paul’s point in 'in Christ there is no male or female.' That, again, does not eliminate our being' male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile.'

[eliyahu]

I don't know why I posted that twice. Sorry.:confused2:

[White]

Brother Les writes:
At Jesus 'trial' 'The People' cried out His blood on our head and on our childrens heads....that is where it ended....The 70AD was The Judgement that 'they' cryed out for on them and their children.....It does not go on 'forever and ever', They asked for 'Judgement and 'they' were Judged....and it is 'over'....nuf' said

Hi Brother Les, Eliyahu, Ram,

The revelation I received from the LORD in 1998 was exactly on this verse, and I quoted it to Codebreaker today - seriously I did - , after watching the Movie JESUS based on the Book of John - and here I find this verse on the Bible Wheel Forum:
"His blood be on us and on our children..." is a fantastic statement, because they (the Jewish People) are already claiming the BLOOD OF THE SINLESS LAMB OF GOD on their head (without knowing what they are saying - just as the High Priest Caiphas prophesied the death of Christ - One Man dying for the Nation Israel to Save the Nation Israel), and as such, all the Jewish people have to do is accept JESUS / Y'SHUA in their heart and they are washed in the BLOOD of the LAMB which is already on their heads. Does Jesus / Y'SHUA not say in the book of Acts repeating Isaiah : "Their eyes are blind, their ears are dull... ... I shall HEAl them "(from their unbelief in HIM). One day the LORD spoke to me with these words : "IS ANYTHING TOO HARD FOR ME?" I had to say, NO, a million times NO! What could possibly be too hard for our LORD and Savior, Jesus / Y'SHUA? Is HE then not able and willing to open the eyes of the Jewish People to HIMSELF, so that they convert (not meaning abandoning Judaism, but living as "perfected" or "completed" Jews)
and be healed. It is not in our hands, but in the LORD'S hands. Which brings me to the following verse:

Romans 11:32 is clear : GOD has shut up all in disobedience, so that HE might show M E R C Y to all = A L L, meaning me, you and the whole world. When HE heals = meaning opens the eyes of the unbeliever = He will then be their GOD and they will be HIS PEOPLE, washed in the sinless blood of the lamb. What a glorious day that will be - ISAIAH 4:2-6 explains the glorious Kingdom and Protection in the Messianic Millenium Age. I cannot wait! How about you? But only prayer can achieve the spiritual surrender of Israel - may the LORD hear and answer speedily, even in our days. See also Jeremiah 31:22.

Eliyahu writes:
The Holy Spirit in Paul sees a definite future for unbelieving Israel. The Spirit is in Christ praying for Israel’s national salvation to this day and He will see it in the future.

I wholeheartedly believe with you, Eliyahu, that GOD is NOT finished with ISRAEL (meaning the Jewish Nation Israel and its people) and that HE has an incrdible plan for them, to lead the whole world to the TRUTH which is in Messiah Y'SHUA / JESUS of Nazareth, who is, was and will always be a Jewish man. Thank you for your work and your informed posts and wisdom and LOVE for the Jewish People, but most of all for your LOVE or OUR LORD and SAVIOR, Y'SHUA / Jesus.


Shalom to Jerusalem and the Holy Land
with Yshua / JESUS in the heart of all.
Monique

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The olive tree picture bears chronology. The co-existing union of the natural branches and the wild ones both drawing sap together from the holy root is the new phenomenon called the church. It is not a totally new tree called the church. It is a tree now pruned and with the new wild branches grafted in. That is called the church. The church is thus made of natural branches and in grafted wild ones. That is, Jews of faith and Gentiles of faith. Both are supported by the root- the promises to the fathers of natural Israel.
That's great! We agree. The Olive Tree blossomed into the Church when Christ made the New Covenant.

Just to be clear, I never said anything about "a totally new tree called the church" - I don't think that would be accurate at all.


This is why "28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. 29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." Romans 11:28-29.

In relation to the gospel, the unbelieving Israel rejects salvation by faith in the Messiah's New Covenant. They (in Paul’s day) hold to and/or preach salvation through the old covenant works apart from Jesus altogether. In any case, they resist and reject they gospel. They, theologically, are "enemies of the gospel."

Again, that makes perfect sense to me. I am particularly pleased that you modified "they" to indicate "in Paul's day" - that is a very important point.


This has moved the Jewish people to form a Rabbinical Judaism which is opposed to the concept of the trinity, Jesus' Messiahship, etc. Their "election" in Rom 11:28 is based on their ethnic heritage as descendants of Abraham through Isaac. I will get to this below.

"They are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts as calling of God are without repentance." "They" are the unbelieving Israel today even after AD 70. Their "fathers" are spiritually also the church's (both Jew and Gentile) fathers (1 Cor 10:1) through our faith in the new covenant with "Israel" (Jer 31:31). 1 Cor 10 gives examples of the church’s 'fathers' from unbelieving, disobedient Israel of the past. This is NT evidence that Jeremiah's "Israel" includes Jews who are faithful to God and those who were not. You cannot superimpose something you believe from the NT onto the old test and contradict the original meaning.

I agree that the "fathers" of Israel are also "fathers" in the NT. But the examples in 1 Cor 10 do not commend the actions of those sinners, so I don't know what your point is in that underlined sentence.

As for Jeremiah's "Israel" - that refers to the remnant of Israel that believed God when He came to earth and was crucified and resurrected. God did not make His New Covenant with people who rejected Jesus Christ.

And I agree that "I" could not superimpose something that I believe from the NT onto the OT and contradict the "original" meaning. But God certainly is free to interpret His OT Word in terms of the NT which He did frequently. Case in point, He interpreted Jer 31 in terms of the NT in Hebrews 8, and said in that context that the Old Covenant was about to vanish away.


Israel’s repeated disobedience (sin and the sinful nature) is why God would need to make a New Covenant with them (Jer 31:32).

I strongly disagree. It was not because of Israel's sin. God planned the NC from the beginning. It was His original plan. He called Abraham for the purpose of forming the Jews from whom He would raise up Christ to fulfill His promise to bless all the nations. God never had any plan or intent for a never-ending earthly Kingdom of Israel.


It would "not" be "like the covenant... which they broke." The sinful nature was the problem with the old covenant. When the sinful nature was put to death and Israel was resurrected with a holy nature in union with Messiah, the Torah was "written on their hearts," Jer 31:33. That is, the hearts of those in Israel who would believe and receive.

"They are beloved for the fathers' sake. For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable/ without repentance." This also validates that the unbelieving in Israel who are "cut off" still have a national hope promised to them as physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac.

National hope? Where does the Bible talk about anything like that?


"They" are the unbelievers. Their calling to be "a light to the Gentiles" is still in effect.

That calling was ultimately fulfilled in Christ (Luke 2:32, Acts 26:23). He was the LIGHT of the World, Jew and Gentile alike. It also was fulfilled in the preaching of the Gospel by the Jewish apostles like Paul (Acts 13:47) after the Jews "judged themselves unworthy of eternal life." Now I do hope that ethnic Israel will be used by God to preach His Gospel in the future, but I don't see that clearly prophesied in the Bible.


That God will make them "a light to the nations" will yet come to pass. These are some of their "callings" God has not repented of.

Again, that was first fulfilled in Christ, and then again in the Jewish apostles of the Gospel. I see no reason to think it should be interpreted as yet to be fulfilled in the future by ethnic "Israel" who is not even "Israel" anymore since there is no longer a Torah covenant to define them.


What are the "gifts" unbelieving Israel has?
"3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren (in reference to the unbelieving Jews), 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; 5 whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 9:3-5.

I think you should have said "had."


Why is Paul wishing himself accursed from Christ for his fellow unbelieving Jews? Was it out of his human compassion for them just because he knew many of them and they were coincidently his nation? Or was it the Holy Spirit within him expressing His unconditional covenant love/faithfulness for all unbelieving Israel? I unapologetically assert the later.

And I respectfully disagree. God has no special "love" for unbelieving Jews over unbelieving Gentiles. The alternative seems to be a carnal interpretation of the Bible. God never made any promises to the children of the flesh. All the promises of God are to the children of the promise.


Why do I? Because Paul then affirms that 'theirs are the covenants…' This is inclusive language is fully applicable to the new covenant with Israel, here as belonging to unbelieving Israel (not implying that they have entered the new covt’, only that is was cut with them, Jer 31:31). The Holy Spirit in Paul sees a definite (however dismal before great) future for unbelieving Israel. The Spirit is in Christ praying for Israel’s national salvation to this day and He will see it in the future.
This is a sticky point that will require some further discussion. I reject the idea that God "cut" the NC with unbelieving Israel.


Paul qualifies the validity of unbelieving ethnic Israel in Romans 9:3-5. And furthermore, where Paul said 'not all Israel are Israel' he was making a particular point, wasn’t he? His point was that the promises only are fulfilled in the faithful remnant.

I would reword that to say "His point was that the promises are fully fulfilled in the faithful remnant and all who are grafted in by faith."


He was not making a blanket reinterpretation of the entire OT’s usage of the word "Israel."

The entire NT is an inspired "blanket reinterpretation" of the entire OT.


That would mean that the word "Israel" would have meant something different before Paul penned Romans. Paul would be redefining God’s word.

That's not correct at all. Paul was an inspired prophet of the New Covenant. God is free to reintepret His Own Word through His prophets.

And there is no problem with new meanings of OT things revealed in the New Testament. This happened all the time.


It would be like a Back to the Future paradox. THIS IS WHY I SAY THAT PRETERISTS INTERPRET THE BIBLE BACKWARDS.

I don't see any paradox at all. The understanding of Israel as the Church is lucid and clear and you seemed to agree with it above.

And why do you say "preterists" interpret the Bible backwards? Preterism is defined by the idea that prophecy was fulfilled in the first century - it is not directly concerned with the definition of Israel. That issue comes up regardless of your eschatology.

Also, you charge seems extreme. It is the Bible that interprets "Israel" to have multiple meanings, ultimately as the Church. Preterists just follow Scripture on this point. We didn't invent these ideas. It was Paul who said the unbelieving members of ethnic Israel were not really Israel at all, and were not children of Promise, and so were not ever given any promises in the first place. That is the fundamental error in your theology. You seem to think that God gave promises to the unbelievers in ethnic Israel, when in fact He explicitly says He never did. He gave promises only to the children of promise.


Gentile believers are not grafted into unbelieving ethnic Israel. The unbelievers in Israel were 'cut off.' They did not then cease to be Israel. They ceased to qualify for the promised blessings to Abraham’s seed once Jesus died and rose and once they rejected Him and the new covt with them. God is not requiring old covenant faith from Israel any longer. He is requiring new covenant faith from them. That is how they are "cut off." They are in an unbroken relationship with God which they cannot escape through unbelief. Their relationship with God dramatically changed at the cross and the empty tomb.

Correct. There is no distinction whatsoever between how Jews and Gentiles get saved.


This is why 'Israel' in Jer 31 includes the unbelieving Jews.

This is the sticking point. I do not believe that you have given me any evidence yet that God made the New Covenant with unbelievers.


God was going to eliminate the sinful nature for Israel and "write His Torah on their hearts." Once that was accomplished, the still unbelieving in Israel were not in a condition to inherit the promised which are summed up in the Messiah, unless they themselves are included in Him by faith. That is why God will deal with their hearts, turn their hearts to Christ and then fulfill all his promises to ethnic national Israel as yet unfulfilled.

There are no promises not fulfilled. The Bible says the land promises were all fulfilled, and all the other promises were fulfilled in Christ. He is their inheritence promised in the Bible. He is their inheritance that we Gentiles partake in with them.


After the time of "Jacob’s trouble" (Jer 30:6)

That prophecy was fulfilled in the great tribulation of 70 AD. We know it was symbolic language because in the immediate context we read: "But they shall serve the LORD their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them. (Jeremiah 30:9). That verse refers to Jesus Christ who was raised up, just like the prophecy in Deut 18:15 and Ezek 37:24. We know that Deut 18:15 was fufilled in Christ (Acts says so) and Ezek 37 was fulfilled at Pentecost. All these prophecies cohere with simplicity and grace.


when Jesus physically returns as promised (Mat 24:29-30),

There is nothing in Matt 24:29-30 that says anything about "physical." I grant that the word "see" can be interpreted to imply that, but that's not the only interpretation.


there will be nothing left of ethnic Israel but a remnant of faith (Zech 13:8-9).

You think that is still future? Look a the context. We KNOW that Zech13:7 was fulfilled in Chirst in the first century because the Gospels say so. It makes perfect sense that the two verses following were also fulfilled in the great tribulation of 70 AD.


In this way 'all Israel' will be saved in the future (Isa 10:22-23, Hoseah 1:10).

"All Israel?" What does that mean? Every individual Jew alive at some given moment in the future? That will only account for 1% of "all Israel" that ever lived. There are real problems with you interpretation here. I would like to discuss this point more.

Wow .... that was one huge post! I wish we could pick one point at a time and settle it until we agree or agree to disagree. It's hard to answer so many points all at once in one post. Especially since each point tends to expand.

But thanks for the great post. You gave us a lot of meat to chew on.

God bless you bro.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Originally Posted by eliyahu
In this way 'all Israel' will be saved in the future (Isa 10:22-23, Hoseah 1:10).

Here's a question. What did Paul mean when he said, "In this way"? What way? How will Israel be saved? The answer is within context of the passage. He's referring to the grafting in of Gentiles with the natural branches. Thus Israel is not saved because Jews of the flesh would return. He's saying that Israel would be saved by the forming of one new Tree, the grafting in of both natural and unnatural branches.

The former Jews (many of them) were broken off because of unbelief. The Gentiles who believed were grafted in. And even today, if Jews of the flesh accept Jesus as their Messiah (and many of them do), then they are grafted in as well. Thus, "IN THIS WAY" all Israel is saved, and creates what Paul also calls, "The Israel [built] of God" and not man. God's creation of Israel if for all, but the Jews of the flesh seem to have thought that Israel only consisted of them. Sadly, some zionists are doing the same thing today.

Joe

[Rose]

Here's a question. What did Paul mean when he said, "In this way"? What way? How will Israel be saved? The answer is within context of the passage. He's referring to the grafting in of Gentiles with the natural branches. Thus Israel is not saved because Jews of the flesh would return. He's saying that Israel would be saved by the forming of one new Tree, the grafting in of both natural and unnatural branches.

The former Jews (many of them) were broken off because of unbelief. The Gentiles who believed were grafted in. And even today, if Jews of the flesh accept Jesus as their Messiah (and many of them do), then they are grafted in as well. Thus, "IN THIS WAY" all Israel is saved, and creates what Paul also calls, "The Israel [built] of God" and not man. God's creation of Israel if for all, but the Jews of the flesh seem to have thought that Israel only consisted of them. Sadly, some zionists are doing the same thing today.

Joe

Hi Joe,

Excellent point, :thumb:
It's most wonderful, when the understanding we get is taken from the context.
As you said, no more can anyone be a "true Jew" by birth, but only by accepting Messiah, and being grafted into the tree.

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's a question. What did Paul mean when he said, "In this way"? What way? How will Israel be saved? The answer is within context of the passage. He's referring to the grafting in of Gentiles with the natural branches. Thus Israel is not saved because Jews of the flesh would return. He's saying that Israel would be saved by the forming of one new Tree, the grafting in of both natural and unnatural branches.

The former Jews (many of them) were broken off because of unbelief. The Gentiles who believed were grafted in. And even today, if Jews of the flesh accept Jesus as their Messiah (and many of them do), then they are grafted in as well. Thus, "IN THIS WAY" all Israel is saved, and creates what Paul also calls, "The Israel of God" and not man. God's creation of Israel if for all, but the Jews of the flesh seem to have thought that Israel only consisted of them. Sadly, some zionists are doing the same thing today.

Joe
Excellent explanation Joe!

In times past, before the New Covenant, Gentiles also could be included in Israel by conversion. Nothing has changed in that regard. It was pure arrogance on the part of carnal Jews to think that they were special above all others in the world. God was using them to build the Israel of God as you so aptly put it.


Your focus on "in this way" of Romans 11:26 is an essential key to a proper exegesis of that passage. Another key is to ask "was there ever a time when a "Deliverer of Israel" came and "took away their sins?"" Here's the text:
Romans 11:26-27 And so [in this way] all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: 27 For this is my covenant unto them, [B]when I shall take away their sins.

The GOSPEL of Jesus Christ is the proclamation of of the fulfillment of that prophecy! We KNOW that the "covenant" in vs 27 is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, because that is how God takes away our sins. And we know that this was totally fulfilled in Jesus Christ because every NT author says so everyway possible. Consider these words preached TO THE JEWS by Peter shortly after Pentecost:
Acts 3:11-20 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering. 12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? 13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye [Jews] delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. 14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; 15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. 16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all. 17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. 18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. 19 Repent ye [JEWS] therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

The doctrine that the Deliverer Jesus Christ has yet to come to save Israel seems entirely contrary to the Gospel and the plain teaching found throughout the New Testament. It seems to me that Romans 11:27 has been fulfilled in Christ and does not point to any future event.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

The doctrine that the Deliverer Jesus Christ has yet to come to save Israel seems entirely contrary to the Gospel and the plain teaching found throughout the New Testament. It seems to me that Romans 11:27 has been fulfilled in Christ and does not point to any future event.

Amen to that brother Richard! :tea: As we all know, Futurist use the passage in Romans to prove that Jesus would one day return and set his literal feet on "Zion" and save Israel, and it's at that time that they would begin to believe in Him. They arrive at this by combining the words of Jesus in Matthew 23, "You shall not see me again until you say, blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord". So in their view, Jesus would return, the Jews who rejected Jesus would witness this miracle, and then they will accept Him. But this means two things which are clearly not scriptural:

1. Their future salvation would be based on eye-sight and not by faith
2. A special convenant which did not require the rebirth and growth as a christian, as if a third covenent will be established to them personally.

Therefore, the idea of a literal Mt. Zion return for the salvation of the Jews is not scriptural. Rather, as the author of Hebrews testifies, "For you have come to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem..." indicating as you stated, this was fulfilled through the Gospel, and this gospel is about one man alone, and that's Jesus Christ.

Brother Richard I've come to one conclusion out of years of study, and this one fact alone proves the importance of a single King, and that's Jesus. All prophesy is about Jesus Christ, nothing more or less.

Now last night I was reading the gospels and something hit me. Perhaps you can interpret the Greek for me and let me know if the translation is incorrect:


Luke 22:
63The men who were guarding Jesus began mocking and beating him. 64They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?" 65And they said many other insulting things to him.

Now I had to read this twice to make sure I understood it, but did you notice something? Did you notice that they first blind folded Him, struck Him and then said, "Prophesy! Who hit you?" I bring this up because many of us seem to think that prophesy is all about the Future, But couldn't prophesy also be about the unknown? Of course, I'm quite certain that Jesus knew in fact who struck him. But the striking of his face happened first, and then He was told to prophesy. Where am I going with this?


Revelation 19:10
And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”

We both agree that Revelation is a done deal. But I use this to show that Revelation is not entirely about a book of future events to take place from the time of its writing. Rather, Revelation is MORE than a vision explaining the events of Jerusalem, the sufferings of Christians through two Beasts, one from the sea (Romans) and one from the earth (Jews) which both would end up destroyed by Christ Jesus; the Vision's of Revelation is about the testimony of Jesus Christ. Revelation is a story book of figures and symbols used to describe Jesus, His Saints, His Kingdom, and those opposed to His Kingdom.

Both sides (Roman and Jews) persecuted the Saints, but in the end, it was the Saints who were victorious over both Jews and Romans. And Revelation was about unvieling the unknown, what was formerly not known or understood. That is why John states, "Blessed [rather how happy is he / she] who reads [aloud] and understands the prophesy of this book, for the time is near."

Granted many of the events were to be the its near future. But many of the visions consisted primarily of signs and visions to explain Jesus Christ. In conclusion, John is told in Revelation, "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophesy"

What does this mean to me? It means that Revelation is a testimony of Jesus, and not just a book depicting the fate of the world and the destruction of sinners, especially as Futurist depict.

Maybe I'm sounding confusing to everyone, but my point is simple. Jesus was blind folded, struck on the face, and was then told to prophesy as to who hit him, not who "would" hit him, as if it was future. See what I'm getting at?

Another example of this is the vision king Neb had in Daniel, which portrayed his kingdom as the head of gold. This wasn't a future event, but a spiritual truth revealed to Daniel to give to the king of Babylon, while at the same time, also portraying "spiritual truths" to the king of Babylon about the kingdoms which would come after him.

Thus, in the same way, Revelation is a book of spiritual truths and is a testimony of Jesus Christ, while at the same time, telling the story of past events, as well as future spiritual truths. That, to me, is why the book is called "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". Revelation, if I'm not mistaken, simply means to "reveal" or to "Make known" was was not formerly known. This book reveals the victory and triumph of the Kingdom of God, over both Apostate Jerusalem and the Demonic Roman Empire.

Sorry for the length brother Richard, but I wanted to get your insights on this.

Joe