Seed of Abraham represent only Fleshly Jews?

[TheForgiven]

Friends,

I was reading the creeds and beliefs on John Hagee's website. And look at what this says:


Our Commitment to Israel

We believe in the promise of Genesis 12:3 regarding the Jewish people and the nation of Israel. We believe that this is an eternal covenant between God and the seed of Abraham to which God is faithful.

This is what comes to my mind. He defines Israel as what's located on a geographical map. He also believes that Jews have a special "covenant" relationship with God. But did you notice something else? He refers to Jewish people who live in geographical Israel as "The Seed of Abraham".

But wasn't it Paul who stated that "They are not all Israel, who are of Israel"? Paul explains that Jews are Jewish by the Spirit [of Christ] and not because of blood heritage or skin type. Sure there are Jews of the flesh, but if they are in Christ, it makes no difference. He also explains that only those of the promise of Abraham are regarded as Israel, called also the children of promise.

I also noted how he uses the phrase [B]"Christians and Jews", as if the two could be separated. Scripture affirms that Christians are Jews, and fleshly Jews (though they don't exist anymore) who reject Christ as the Messiah are not true Jews, nor are they Israel. The same applies to foreigners; that is, those born of the nations outside of Israel. And spiritually speaking, a foreigner by Christian standards are those outside of Christ; everyone inside of Christ are Jews via adoption by the Holy Spirit. We aren't recognized by our blood type, but by the blood which sanctifies us through and through, thanks to our beloved Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Joe

[eliyahu]

Check out what Dr. Michael Brown had to say about John Hagee's new and dangerous teachings:

Pastor John Hagee’s new book, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State (Lake Mary, Florida: Front Line, 2007), was publicized by announcements stating that the book would 'shake Christian theology.' The following positions are explicitly laid out in the book:

The Jewish people, as a whole, did not reject Jesus as Messiah.

Jesus did not come to earth to be the Messiah.

Jesus refused by word and deed to be the Messiah.

The Jews cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered.

Statements like this must be evaluated in light of 1 John 2:22: 'Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ [i.e., Messiah]. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.' As commentator Stephen S. Smalley explained, 'The true believer is the one who accepts the Christhood of Jesus, whereas those who deny his messianic identity declare themselves to be on the side of the antichrist' (Word Biblical Commentary).

What could possibly be the motivation for teaching such error? First, In Defense of Israel desires to dispel once and for all the notion that all Jews are Christ-killers, a terrible lie that has fueled anti-Semitism in the Church for more than 1,500 years. Second, the book wants to refute the false teaching of replacement theology, explaining that, 'Replacement theologians have said that ‘the covenant with Israel was broken because she would not accept Jesus Christ whom God sent.’' (See p. 132 of In Defense of Israel.) Tragically, in the attempt to fight against these serious errors, a more serious error has now been introduced. Yet some believers – and even leaders! – are buying into this error hook, line, and sinker, and some have begun to teach and preach it as well.

Since the publication of the book, Pastor Hagee issued some clarifying remarks, but the clarifications only complicate the issues and fail to renounce and remove the error.

Here are three fundamental statements that all believers should be able to affirm without hesitation:

1) Jesus came to be the Messiah. This is the fundamental message of the New Testament, which is why we call him 'Christ' (meaning, 'Messiah'). And it is a fundamental message of the Scriptures that the Messiah had to suffer and die if he was one day to rule and reign (see, e.g., Luke 24:25-27, 44-47), a biblical truth that most of the Jewish people of Yeshua’s day missed, a biblical truth that most Jews through the ages have continued to miss, and a biblical truth that In Defense of Israel has now fed into as well.

In the clarifying statements that have been made since the publication of his book, it was explained that Jesus came to be the suffering Messiah but not the reigning Messiah – something, of course, that we all knew, and something that would hardly 'shake Christian theology' – but these statements have simply introduced another nuance to the error, since nowhere in the New Testament is such a distinction made.

In other words, God did not say to Israel, 'It’s fine that you rejected Jesus as Messiah because he did not come in the political way you expected. He had to die in order to be the Savior of the world, so you are not guilty.' There is not a hint of such a message in the Scriptures, which simply proclaim him as the Messiah, period.

That’s why Jesus explicitly identified himself as the Messiah in the Gospels (see, e.g., Matt 16:16-17; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 7:20-23; John 4:25-26; 5:39, 45-47; 10:24-25) – not as the suffering Messiah, whom his people were supposed to reject so that he could die, as opposed to the reigning Messiah, whom they would one day receive, but simply as the Messiah – and that’s why the Gospel authors frequently announced him as the Messiah (in Greek, the Christ; see, e.g., Luke 2:11, 26; John 1:41; 3:28; 11:27; 20:31). And that’s why the apostles proclaimed him as the Messiah in Acts (see, e.g., Acts 2:31, 36; 3:18, 20; 4:26; 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:2-3; 18:5, 28; 26:23).

I would encourage you to look up every reference cited here. It is all quite simple, forthright, and easy to understand, and nowhere is any distinction made between the suffering and reigning Messiah. To repeat: Jesus is proclaimed as the Messiah of Israel, period, and because he is the Messiah of Israel, he is the Savior of the world.

2) The Jewish people rejected their Messiah. Although all Jews are not Christ-killers (God forbid!), and although the entire Jewish nation did not play a role in the crucifixion of Jesus, God held the Jewish people in Jesus’ day responsible for his death and, more significantly, he held them responsible for rejecting Jesus the Messiah after his resurrection. The New Testament witness is explicit and consistent on this.

That’s why the apostles preached to 'the people of Israel' that they were guilty of rejecting the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23, 36; 3:13-15, 17, 19; 4:10-11; 5:30; 7:52; 13:27-28; see also John 1:12), and that’s why Paul spoke of Israel’s hardening, breaking off, stumbling, transgression, and rejection (see Rom 9:31; 10:3; 11:7, 11-12, 15, 20 – although with the full expectation of Israel’s future redemption; see Rom 11:11-15, 25-26). Again, I encourage you to take a moment to look up these passages. They are striking in their force and consistency.

Because of this rejection, severe judgment came on the Jewish people in the first century, as prophesied by Yeshua with tears (see Luke 19:41-44; see also Matt 23:29-37) and as taught in his parables (see, e.g., Matt 21:33-46; 22:1-14).

As painful as this witness is, it cannot be rewritten, nor can anyone lessen Israel’s guilt because it was God’s will that Jesus died on the cross. To the contrary, just as it was God’s will that Joseph be sold into Egyptian slavery and yet at the same time his brothers were guilty of sinning against him (Gen 44:16-45:5; 50:14-20), so also it was God’s will that Yeshua die for our sins while at the same time the Jewish people, along with Herod and Pilate and the Romans, were guilty of having him crucified (see Acts 2:22-24; 4:27-28).

It is scripturally impossible to claim that 'the Jews cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered.' A glorious offer was made and refused, and that’s why Paul’s heart was broken (see Rom 9:1-5).

3) Jesus remains the Jewish Messiah, and there is no salvation for the Jewish people outside of faith in him. Although Pastor Hagee has consistently stated that he does not teach 'dual covenant' theology, referring to the false concept that Jews can be saved outside of faith in Jesus, his new teaching certainly aids and abets that error. After all, if 'The Jews Did Not Reject Jesus as Messiah' (as stated in bold print in his book), and if 'Jesus refused by word and deed to be the Messiah' (be it the 'reigning Messiah' or not), then, not only can it be said that 'the Jews [in Jesus’ day] cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered' but that the Jews in any day cannot be blamed for not accepting Yeshua.

This again is a fundamental denial of the Word of God, and although In Defense of Israel claims that the 'message of the gospel was from Israel, not to Israel,' Jesus, Peter, and Paul declared that the message of the gospel was to Israel first, and then from Israel to the nations (see Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; 3:26; 13:32-39; Rom 1:16; in Paul’s words to the Jewish leaders in Rome, it was 'for the sake of the hope of Israel' that he was bound in chains; Acts 28:20).

To be sure, there are a number of other errors found in the critical section of In Defense of Israel (including the myth that there was a so-called cup of the Messiah, the alleged fourth cup of the Passover meal that Yeshua supposedly refused to drink), but this is not the place to address those concerns, and to focus on the smaller problems would detract from the larger picture.

If you are not currently on our e-list, I would encourage you to sign up today. And let’s continue to make the truth known: Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel, the King of the Jews, the Savior of the World!

In Him,

Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.

[eliyahu]

Check out what Dr. Michael Brown had to say about John Hagee's new and dangerous teachings:

Pastor John Hagee’s new book, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State (Lake Mary, Florida: Front Line, 2007), was publicized by announcements stating that the book would 'shake Christian theology.' The following positions are explicitly laid out in the book:

The Jewish people, as a whole, did not reject Jesus as Messiah.

Jesus did not come to earth to be the Messiah.

Jesus refused by word and deed to be the Messiah.

The Jews cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered.

Statements like this must be evaluated in light of 1 John 2:22: 'Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ [i.e., Messiah]. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.' As commentator Stephen S. Smalley explained, 'The true believer is the one who accepts the Christhood of Jesus, whereas those who deny his messianic identity declare themselves to be on the side of the antichrist' (Word Biblical Commentary).

What could possibly be the motivation for teaching such error? First, In Defense of Israel desires to dispel once and for all the notion that all Jews are Christ-killers, a terrible lie that has fueled anti-Semitism in the Church for more than 1,500 years. Second, the book wants to refute the false teaching of replacement theology, explaining that, 'Replacement theologians have said that ‘the covenant with Israel was broken because she would not accept Jesus Christ whom God sent.’' (See p. 132 of In Defense of Israel.) Tragically, in the attempt to fight against these serious errors, a more serious error has now been introduced. Yet some believers – and even leaders! – are buying into this error hook, line, and sinker, and some have begun to teach and preach it as well.

Since the publication of the book, Pastor Hagee issued some clarifying remarks, but the clarifications only complicate the issues and fail to renounce and remove the error.

Here are three fundamental statements that all believers should be able to affirm without hesitation:

1) Jesus came to be the Messiah. This is the fundamental message of the New Testament, which is why we call him 'Christ' (meaning, 'Messiah'). And it is a fundamental message of the Scriptures that the Messiah had to suffer and die if he was one day to rule and reign (see, e.g., Luke 24:25-27, 44-47), a biblical truth that most of the Jewish people of Yeshua’s day missed, a biblical truth that most Jews through the ages have continued to miss, and a biblical truth that In Defense of Israel has now fed into as well.

In the clarifying statements that have been made since the publication of his book, it was explained that Jesus came to be the suffering Messiah but not the reigning Messiah – something, of course, that we all knew, and something that would hardly 'shake Christian theology' – but these statements have simply introduced another nuance to the error, since nowhere in the New Testament is such a distinction made.

In other words, God did not say to Israel, 'It’s fine that you rejected Jesus as Messiah because he did not come in the political way you expected. He had to die in order to be the Savior of the world, so you are not guilty.' There is not a hint of such a message in the Scriptures, which simply proclaim him as the Messiah, period.

That’s why Jesus explicitly identified himself as the Messiah in the Gospels (see, e.g., Matt 16:16-17; Mark 14:61-62; Luke 7:20-23; John 4:25-26; 5:39, 45-47; 10:24-25) – not as the suffering Messiah, whom his people were supposed to reject so that he could die, as opposed to the reigning Messiah, whom they would one day receive, but simply as the Messiah – and that’s why the Gospel authors frequently announced him as the Messiah (in Greek, the Christ; see, e.g., Luke 2:11, 26; John 1:41; 3:28; 11:27; 20:31). And that’s why the apostles proclaimed him as the Messiah in Acts (see, e.g., Acts 2:31, 36; 3:18, 20; 4:26; 5:42; 8:5; 9:22; 17:2-3; 18:5, 28; 26:23).

I would encourage you to look up every reference cited here. It is all quite simple, forthright, and easy to understand, and nowhere is any distinction made between the suffering and reigning Messiah. To repeat: Jesus is proclaimed as the Messiah of Israel, period, and because he is the Messiah of Israel, he is the Savior of the world.

2) The Jewish people rejected their Messiah. Although all Jews are not Christ-killers (God forbid!), and although the entire Jewish nation did not play a role in the crucifixion of Jesus, God held the Jewish people in Jesus’ day responsible for his death and, more significantly, he held them responsible for rejecting Jesus the Messiah after his resurrection. The New Testament witness is explicit and consistent on this.

That’s why the apostles preached to 'the people of Israel' that they were guilty of rejecting the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23, 36; 3:13-15, 17, 19; 4:10-11; 5:30; 7:52; 13:27-28; see also John 1:12), and that’s why Paul spoke of Israel’s hardening, breaking off, stumbling, transgression, and rejection (see Rom 9:31; 10:3; 11:7, 11-12, 15, 20 – although with the full expectation of Israel’s future redemption; see Rom 11:11-15, 25-26). Again, I encourage you to take a moment to look up these passages. They are striking in their force and consistency.

Because of this rejection, severe judgment came on the Jewish people in the first century, as prophesied by Yeshua with tears (see Luke 19:41-44; see also Matt 23:29-37) and as taught in his parables (see, e.g., Matt 21:33-46; 22:1-14).

As painful as this witness is, it cannot be rewritten, nor can anyone lessen Israel’s guilt because it was God’s will that Jesus died on the cross. To the contrary, just as it was God’s will that Joseph be sold into Egyptian slavery and yet at the same time his brothers were guilty of sinning against him (Gen 44:16-45:5; 50:14-20), so also it was God’s will that Yeshua die for our sins while at the same time the Jewish people, along with Herod and Pilate and the Romans, were guilty of having him crucified (see Acts 2:22-24; 4:27-28).

It is scripturally impossible to claim that 'the Jews cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered.' A glorious offer was made and refused, and that’s why Paul’s heart was broken (see Rom 9:1-5).

3) Jesus remains the Jewish Messiah, and there is no salvation for the Jewish people outside of faith in him. Although Pastor Hagee has consistently stated that he does not teach 'dual covenant' theology, referring to the false concept that Jews can be saved outside of faith in Jesus, his new teaching certainly aids and abets that error. After all, if 'The Jews Did Not Reject Jesus as Messiah' (as stated in bold print in his book), and if 'Jesus refused by word and deed to be the Messiah' (be it the 'reigning Messiah' or not), then, not only can it be said that 'the Jews [in Jesus’ day] cannot be blamed for not accepting what was never offered' but that the Jews in any day cannot be blamed for not accepting Yeshua.

This again is a fundamental denial of the Word of God, and although In Defense of Israel claims that the 'message of the gospel was from Israel, not to Israel,' Jesus, Peter, and Paul declared that the message of the gospel was to Israel first, and then from Israel to the nations (see Luke 24:47; Acts 1:8; 3:26; 13:32-39; Rom 1:16; in Paul’s words to the Jewish leaders in Rome, it was 'for the sake of the hope of Israel' that he was bound in chains; Acts 28:20).

To be sure, there are a number of other errors found in the critical section of In Defense of Israel (including the myth that there was a so-called cup of the Messiah, the alleged fourth cup of the Passover meal that Yeshua supposedly refused to drink), but this is not the place to address those concerns, and to focus on the smaller problems would detract from the larger picture.

If you are not currently on our e-list, I would encourage you to sign up today. And let’s continue to make the truth known: Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel, the King of the Jews, the Savior of the World!

In Him,

Michael L. Brown, Ph.D.

This was taken from Dr. Brown's ministry's website at http://www.icnministries.org/israel/defenseIsrael.htm

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Eliyahu,

I found Dr. Brown's article and posted a link to it recently in the other thread "Has God forsaken His People? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=5864&highlight=brown+hagee%27s#post5864)". I was very happy to see that he has a clear biblical understanding of many of Hagee's errors.

But I don't see anything about the topic of this thread, namely, the "seed of Abraham" being only the carnal sons of Abraham. I would very interested to know what you and he think concerning the explicit biblical statement that unbelieving Jews are not "counted" as the "seed of Abraham."

The Bible explicitly states that Christians are the "seed of Abraham" and that unbelieving Jews are "not counted for seed." How do you understand this?

Richard

[Christan]

A little leaven does wonders. Thank God they havent really tried to track down all the tribes with DNA testing. There are an aweful lot of people who are descendents of the Exodus. Consider how many people died in the plague alone. There has been some real sifting going on. That being said . I love and I mean absolutley love Jewish women. My Emerald Sarah is Jewish with true blue eyes. The Canannites used to simply make images of blue eyes and put them on the hearth. Wonderful things they are. The Jewish sisterhood can be so empathetic. My first love for sure. Incedently my Dutch lines are by the name Cornelius.