Has God Forsaken His People? [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

eliyahu

01-20-2008, 10:51 AM

This is a slightly paraphrased excerpt from Our Hands Are Stained With Blood, The Tragic Story of the 'Church' and the Jewish People. Dr. Michael L. Brown. Destiny Image, 1992. pp118-126. He was the president of My Bible school and a teacher of mine. He is an author and a respected scholar known internationally. Read this and tell me what you think.

Has God Forsaken His people?

Some things are non-negotiable. God’s covenant with Israel is one of them. How could He have made Himself more clear?
He gave His oath to Abram, and reiterated it six more times to Abraham, to his son Isaac, and to his grandson Jacob. On one occasion,
'When God made His promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for Him to swear by, He sword by Himself. (Hebrews 6:13).'
Why did God speak so decisively? It was because He 'wanted to make the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, [so] He confirmed it with an oath (Heb. 6:17).'
His covenant with Israel was reiterated through Moses, repeated b the prophets and rehearsed by the psalmists. Jesus Himself affirmed it ('but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' He saith unto him, 'Which?' Jesus said, 'Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt
not bear false witness…' Mat 19:17-18.')Paul articulated it (Rom. 9-11) and the gates of the New Jerusalem announce it forever (Rev 22:11-12). God has chosen Israel as His covenant people.
What if Israel broke the covenant? What would then happen to them? Listen to these unmistakably clear truths:
'Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you. I will discipline you but only with justice; I will not let you go entirely unpunished. (Jer. 30:11).'
The exact same words are repeated in Jeremiah 46:28. God will completely destroy other nations, but He will not completely destroy Israel! He treats His people differently than He treats other people; they are judged more strictly, but they will never be wiped out.
No matter what Israel does, God will never forsake them as a distinct people who are His own. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the Lord declares that He will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah. But He doesn’t stop there. It’s as if He’s saying, 'Now don’t get me wrong! Don’t think that this new covenant means that I’m abandoning My people. No!'
'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: '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.' 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' (Jer. 31:35-37).
As long as there is a sun, moon, stars, earth and sea, there will be a distinct people of Israel-no matter what they do. It’s God’s promise! It’s true!
'Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he a pleasant child? For since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him,' saith the LORD.' (Jer 31:20).
Look at how relevant God’s word is to our day and age. For centuries the Church, in arrogance, because of ignorance, claimed that she alone as the true Israel, that she had replaced the ancient covenant people. The church taught that is was the Christians alone who were the true Jews. (How strange that these Christians were not claiming to be Jews during the Holocaust!) The Church taught emphatically that the physical people of Israel (those who were ethnically Jewish and those who joined the nation through conversion to Judaism) were eternally rejected.
This is not some worn-out old doctrine. It is on the increase again in our day. Yet the Lord is not surprised. Twenty-five hundred years ago, He already addressed this issue:
'Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 'Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? Thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.’ Thus saith the LORD; 'If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.’' (Jer. 33:23-26).
People are still murmuring against Israel and despising the people and the nation. God’s answer is still the same: 'I will not reject them!'
What exactly is God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants? How long are His promises good? Psalm 105 has the answer for us.
'He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, 'Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance.’' (Psalm 105:8-11).
Did God make Himself clear?
The scripture speak of God’s 'covenant,' the 'word' He 'commanded'. His 'oath' He 'confirmed' as a decree forever, for a thousand generations, as an everlasting covenant. The Lord is trying to make a point!
Not only did He promise to bless Abraham and make him into a great nation; not only did He promise to multiply his seed; not only did He promise to make him the father of many nations; not only did He promise to bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him; He also promised Abraham the land of Canaan, with clearly defined borders, as an everlasting inheritance to his natural descendants- until this earth is no more.
Amazingly, some teachers have tried to get out of this perpetual land promise to Israel. They claim that in the New Testament, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever reiterate this particular aspect of the covenant. But why should they reiterate it? When almost all of the New Testament was being written, about one million Jews were living in the land, Jerusalem was the spiritual and national capitol and the Temple was still standing. And Jesus made it clear that, despite Jerusalem’s soon-coming destruction- a destruction that would last 'until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled'- He would come back to a Jewish Jerusalem (Luke 21:24, Mat. 23:37-39). Obviously Jews would be in the land!
But there is another reason why Jesus and the apostles never explicitly stress the land promise to their people. The specifics of God’s covenant with the patriarchs were so clearly stated in the Scriptures that it would have been a waste of words to repeal them all! David Brown, the respected nineteenth century Bible commentator, was correct when he said:
'What is permanent in the kingdom of God under the Old Testament is PRESUMED in the New.'
And let all believers who question Israel’s right to the Land, based on the New Testament, take note of this: The New Testament doesn’t state that Israel would be exiled from the Land either! Both of these Old Testament truths, Israel’s scattering and Israel’s regathering, are presumed in the New.
The covenant God made with Israel is just like the covenant He made with David. The Lord declared to David that He would establish a lasting dynasty for him:
'And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne
of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the
children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from
Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever' (2 Sam. 7:12-16).
What a wonderful word! In spite of David’s terrible sin and Solomon’s tragic backsliding, in spite of the godlessness of Davidic kings like Ahaz and Manasseh, the kingdom would never be taken from His physical descendants.
When the kingdom was divided and God gave Jeroboam the ten northern tribes, He did so to humble David’s descendants, 'but not forever' (1 Kings 11:39). He still left one tribe with the sons of David,
'So that David My servant may always have a lamp before Me in Jerusalem, the city where I chose to put My name' (1 Kings 11:36).
God offered a lasting dynasty to Jeroboam and his dynasty on the condition that he keep the Lord’s statutes as David had done (1 Kings 11:38). But when Jeroboam failed to obey, his dynasty was wiped out completely, while the kingdom of David lived on. And it continues to live on today: the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords is a direct descendant of David! God was faithful to keep His word.
He is just as faithful to keep His word to Israel. His covenant with Abraham is just as unconditional and everlasting as His covenant with David. Read Genesis 15 carefully. In ancient days, that is how covenants were made. Sacrificial animals were cut in two and their severed bodies placed in two lines. Both parties entering into the covenant would then walk between the carcasses. By doing so they were symbolically saying, 'If I break this binding agreement, if I fail to uphold my side of the pact, then let me suffer the same fate that these animals have suffered.' But something was different in Genesis 15. Only God passed through the pieces! This was a one-way deal.
'And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces. In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites' (Gen. 15:17-21).
The land belonged to other nations. But at the proper time it would be given to Abraham’s seed.
If they violated the terms of the covenant- especially as expressed through Moses- then they would be punished and even driven temporarily from the Land. But just as God’s word to David stands firm, His word to Abraham endures, no matter what Israel does. This is what he said through Moses. When the Israelites are
'And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.' (Lev. 26:44-45).
'And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall
be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you… When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he swear unto them.' (Deut. 4:27, 30-31).
Even Today, when
'As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on [our] account; [yet] as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and His call are irrevocable.' (Rom. 11:28-29).
Could anything be more plain?
Right now the great majority of the Jewish people are 'enemies,' 'as far as the gospel is concerned.' They reject our message (the Orthodox Jews reject it most strongly), and some even actively oppose it. As individuals, they forfeit their covenant blessings when they turn from Jesus the Messiah. But as a people, they are still elect and loved 'on account of the patriarchs.' Otherwise, God’s promises have no meaning and election has no significance. 'Abraham, I’m swearing by myself, I’m putting My reputation on the line. I will bless your offspring always, no matter what. (But I may replace them with someone else one day!) That is not the Lord we serve.
God’s covenant with Abraham is just as unconditional and everlasting as (the new covenant we are partaking of.) The Lord 'saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of His mercy.' (Titus 3:5). Praise God, we were chosen by grace! But we are not the only recipients of God’s unmerited favor. To Israel, Moses said:
'The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.' (Deut. 7:7-8).
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? God’s covenants with Israel… are based on His promise, not our performance.
Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church both stood, and still stand, by grace. Both received God’s eternal promises. Together we make up the family of God: The faithful ones of Israel and the chosen ones from every nation become one new man out of the two, one body, one people.
'For through Him [Jesus] we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.' (Eph. 2:18).
Great is the wisdom of God.
This is not what the Muslims believe. It is a fundamental of the Koran that both Israel and the Church failed. Moses was a prophet. Jesus was a prophet. But Muhammad was the seal of the prophets, the messenger of the final revelation. The Jews are not the people of God- they failed! The Christians are not the people of God- they failed! It is the Muslims who are the people of God.
Of course, this is preposterous. But, in the event that you are still uncertain about the calling of Israel, consider this simple truth: if God could forsake Israel, in spite of His unconditional everlasting promises, then He could replace the Church! So, if you hold to a theology that says, 'God has forsaken physical Israel,' or 'The Church has replaced Israel,' you had better be extremely careful.
Maybe the Koran is right!

Richard Amiel McGough

01-20-2008, 12:46 PM

This is a slightly paraphrased excerpt from Our Hands Are Stained With Blood, The Tragic Story of the 'Church' and the Jewish People. Dr. Michael L. Brown. Destiny Image, 1992. pp118-126. He was the president of My Bible school and a teacher of mine. He is an author and a respected scholar known internationally. Read this and tell me what you think.

Good morning again Eliyahu! :yo:

I'm glad you posted this. It is very helpful to have points of view clearly stated so we can discuss them and learn together. And this issue in particular has led to such overwhelming confusion in the church, I think it is very important to do a thorough study of it.

Has God Forsaken His people?

Some things are non-negotiable. God’s covenant with Israel is one of them. How could He have made Himself more clear?
He gave His oath to Abram, and reiterated it six more times to Abraham, to his son Isaac, and to his grandson Jacob. On one occasion,
'When God made His promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for Him to swear by, He sword by Himself. (Hebrews 6:13).'
Why did God speak so decisively? It was because He 'wanted to make the unchanging nature of His purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, [so] He confirmed it with an oath (Heb. 6:17).'
His covenant with Israel was reiterated through Moses, repeated b the prophets and rehearsed by the psalmists. Jesus Himself affirmed it ('but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' He saith unto him, 'Which?' Jesus said, 'Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt
not bear false witness…' Mat 19:17-18.')Paul articulated it (Rom. 9-11) and the gates of the New Jerusalem announce it forever (Rev 22:11-12). God has chosen Israel as His covenant people.

I agree with everything written above. The only issue then is the identity of "Israel." The Bible is explicit that God gave no promises to carnal "Israel" - that is, people who could merely claim Abraham their ancestor in the flesh. The Bible is explicit that ONLY believers inherit the promises. Only branches in the Olive Tree inherit the promises. Every member of the Olvie Tree believes in Jesus, so the Olive Tree is the Church. As we will see, Dr. Brown's error is his confusion about the identity of Israel.

What if Israel broke the covenant? What would then happen to them? Listen to these unmistakably clear truths:
'Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you. I will discipline you but only with justice; I will not let you go entirely unpunished. (Jer. 30:11).'

That is correct. The REMNANT OF ISRAEL is the Christian Church, as prophesied by God through His OT Prophet Isaiah and then declared by God through His NT Prophet Paul:
Romans 9:27-28 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

And who was that remnant? Paul makes that clear in the beginning of that same chapter:
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
The "remnant" that was "saved" in CHRIST JESUS are the "children of promise" like the Apostle Paul himself.

The exact same words are repeated in Jeremiah 46:28. God will completely destroy other nations, but He will not completely destroy Israel! He treats His people differently than He treats other people; they are judged more strictly, but they will never be wiped out.

Again - perfect agreement, except for Dr. Brown's insistence that God was speaking of carnal Israel. The "Israel" that God saved was the remnant of beleiving Israel that included Peter, Paul, John, Barnabus, Nathaniel, Matthew .... and all the first cerntury JEWS who believed the Gospel. to suggest otherwise is to diminish the whole Gospel message.

No matter what Israel does, God will never forsake them as a distinct people who are His own. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the Lord declares that He will make a new covenant with Israel and Judah. But He doesn’t stop there. It’s as if He’s saying, 'Now don’t get me wrong! Don’t think that this new covenant means that I’m abandoning My people. No!'
'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: '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.' 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' (Jer. 31:35-37).
As long as there is a sun, moon, stars, earth and sea, there will be a distinct people of Israel-no matter what they do. It’s God’s promise! It’s true!

Again, there is only one error. Dr. Brown falsely asserts that Jer 31 was talking about carnal Israel, when we know with absolute certainty that God was talking about the believing remnant that would receive the New Covenant faith in Jesus Christ and therefore become the True Israel,t the Christian Church, the Olive Tree, the branches attached to the Vine of Messaih Jesus Christ (John 15).

'Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he a pleasant child? For since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him,' saith the LORD.' (Jer 31:20).
Look at how relevant God’s word is to our day and age. For centuries the Church, in arrogance, because of ignorance, claimed that she alone as the true Israel, that she had replaced the ancient covenant people. The church taught that is was the Christians alone who were the true Jews. (How strange that these Christians were not claiming to be Jews during the Holocaust!) The Church taught emphatically that the physical people of Israel (those who were ethnically Jewish and those who joined the nation through conversion to Judaism) were eternally rejected.

That paragraph is filled with false and prejudicial statements. The genuine Church has never taught that she "replaced" Israel. That is a lie being foisted on people obsessed with carnal Israel. The TRUE DOCTRINE of the Church is that Israel became the Church. The Church did not "replace" Israel. The Church BEGAN >>>AS ISRAEL<<<. The Church is the BLOSSOMING of Israel. The Church was BORN within the womb of Israel. The Church is the believing REMNANT of Israel. There was no replacement. There was no replacement. There was no replacement. The doctrine of "replacement theology" is an error invented by false teachers preaching Carnal Israelitism.

The Church taught emphatically that the physical people of Israel (those who were ethnically Jewish and those who joined the nation through conversion to Judaism) were eternally rejected.

That is an exreme error and false accusation. The Church has NEVER taught that Jews could not be saved in Christ just like the Gentiles. Indeed, that was Paul's answer to the question "Has God cast away his people?" He answer NO! Look at me! I'm a Jew and I'm saved in Christ. So also shall all Israel be saved if they persist not in unbelief.

But the idea of a carnal salvation for ethnic Israel? The Bible knows nothing of that doctrine.

This is not some worn-out old doctrine. It is on the increase again in our day. Yet the Lord is not surprised. Twenty-five hundred years ago, He already addressed this issue:
'Moreover the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying, 'Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? Thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.’ Thus saith the LORD; 'If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.’' (Jer. 33:23-26).

God has fulfilled that promise in Christ. He is the Inheritance of Israel. All the promises of God are fulfilled in Christ for Jew and Gentile alike. Carnal Israelitism denies the Gospel. It teaches that people are saved by ethnicity rather than faith. The primary error is that Dr. Brown focuses on the flesh.

ISRAEL HAS BEEN SAVED WITH EVERLASTING SALVATION IN THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

And if some them don't believe? Does that make God a liar? GOD FORBID! His promises still stand. He has redeemed His People precisely as He promised!

People are still murmuring against Israel and despising the people and the nation. God’s answer is still the same: 'I will not reject them!'
What exactly is God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants? How long are His promises good? Psalm 105 has the answer for us.

Again, this is Dr. Brown's fundamental error. He thinks that all of Abraham's carnal descendants are "children of the promise." His theology is entriely, totall, and absolutely unbiblical. Indeed, his doctrine directly contradicts by the plain text of Holy Scripture in many passages.

John the Baptist refuted Carnal Israelitism:
Matthew 3:9-10 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The Lord Jesus Christ refuted Carnal Israelism by identifying some men who were the literal "seed of Abraham" as sons of the devil:
John 8:31-46 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

And Paul refuted Carnal Israelitism when he too identified unbelieving carnal children of Abraham's flesh as NOT the children of God:
Romans 9:6-9 6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

The WHOLE POINT of Romans 9 is too refute the false doctrine that God's promises failed because carnal members of ethnic Israel rejected the Gospel. Thus we see that Dr. Brown's fundamental argument is explicitly refuted by John Baptist as quoted in Matthew, the Lord Jesus Christ as quoted by John, and the Apostel Paul in the Book of Romans.

'He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations. Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant: Saying, 'Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance.’' (Psalm 105:8-11).
Did God make Himself clear?

Yes, God has made Himself PERFECTLY CLEAR. The New Covenant is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in HIM shall all Israel be saved.

The scripture speak of God’s 'covenant,' the 'word' He 'commanded'. His 'oath' He 'confirmed' as a decree forever, for a thousand generations, as an everlasting covenant. The Lord is trying to make a point!

Exactly correct! And what is that everlasting covenant? It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Amen! In HIM God has kept His word. That is the WHOLE POIINT of Romans 9. That is why Paul began with the words: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." (NASB) What could be more plain or obvious? Mere carnal ancestory means NOTHING to God. It has NOTHING to do with the Gospel. God Almighty anticipated the false arguments of Carnal Israelitism and has conclusively and exhaustively answered them in His Holy Word.

Not only did He promise to bless Abraham and make him into a great nation; not only did He promise to multiply his seed; not only did He promise to make him the father of many nations; not only did He promise to bless those who blessed him and curse those who cursed him; He also promised Abraham the land of Canaan, with clearly defined borders, as an everlasting inheritance to his natural descendants- until this earth is no more.

All those promises have been fulfilled. In Romans 4 Paul explicitly explains that the "father of many nations" was fulfilled in the Gospel, and Galatians 3 he explains that the promise that he would be a blessing to all nations was likewise a prophecy of the Gospel. The entire BIBLE is about the GOSPEL, not about some supposed promise for dirt in the Middle East.

And as for the land promises, the Bible declares that they were fulfilled:
Joshua 21:43-45 And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. 44 And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.

Furthermore, the fact that God gave it does not mean that they had to accept it! God also gave them Jesus Christ, but they did not all accept that gift.

Richard

basilfo

01-20-2008, 10:00 PM

A few questions for anyone believing modern 'Jews' living in Israel today are still God's 'chosen people' and will ALL be saved as Rom 11:26 says:

1. Can Jews today die rejecting Christ and be saved at any point after their physical death? Can any non-Jew be saved in this way? What chap/verse states this?

2. Why did John the Baptist and the apostles and Jesus go to such lengths in their teaching recorded in the NT to explain to the Jews that 'Abraham is our father' doesn't cut it if Jews remain God's chosen people.

3. When the nation of Israel was God's chosen people, did God ever regather them back to their land without repentance and belief and guidance of a prophet(s)? Why is the formation of secular Israel in 1948 totally void of repentance and obedience of any Jew if it is significant in God's plan? (Christians of 'Jewish' decent by definition are not 'Israel' - they don't have to be saved)

4. In Paul's Olive tree illustration of Rom 11, where is the caviat that the unbelieving branches that are removed still have a chance at salvation as long as they are natural (Jews)?

Peace to you,
Dave

basilfo

01-21-2008, 05:29 AM

joel

01-21-2008, 09:02 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-21-2008, 11:08 AM

The REMNANT OF ISRAEL is the Christian Church, as prophesied by God through His OT Prophet Isaiah and then declared by God through His NT Prophet Paul:
Romans 9:27-28 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Either, what you said, Richard, is a correct interpretation of scripture, or, it is not.

I do not believe that; remant of Israel = the Christian Church.

Of all the times Israel is used in both the old and new Testaments, where does it say this?
Good morning Joel,

I'm really glad you chose to join this conversation. It looks like we need to come to an agreement about some basic terms in the Bible. Nearly two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul wrote about a group called the "remnant" who were saved "according to the election of grace."
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Who was he talking about? Of what was the "remnant" a remnant of?

The church which is His body, is a new creation. It is not of the old creation.

Correct. But remember that every "new creature" created by God at Pentecost was a member of national Israel. They were the "remnant of Israel" that God had promised to save by faith in Christ. They were the remnant of Israel that was not broken off the Olive Tree. They were the Christian Church into which God later grafted in believing Gentiles.

As long as God is continuing to deal with the old humanity in all of its varied forms, Israel will be a part of it.

I see nothing to indicate that God is dealing with "old humanity in all of its varied forms." On the contrary, God finished that on the Cross, making one new man in Christ Jesus. Unbelieving ethnic Jews differ not one whit from an unbelieving Gentile, for God is no respector of persons.

At present, they have been "apobole", not "apotheomai".

Because they have been "cast away" (apobole), the kosmos has experienced a change (katallage). But, they will be received back when God has yet more to accomplish through them. God has not "cast his people away" (apotheomai).

That is correct. They are not apotheomai because they can be saved in Christ just like Paul or any Gentile. That's why Paul used himself as a proof that God had not "cast away" His people. Paul was proving that the crimes of the Jews against Christ did not put them outside of salvation, but that they too - like himself - could be saved in Christ through the Gospel and be grafted back into the Olive Tree and so be a member of the Body of Christ, the Christian Church.

I really hope you would like to dig deep on this issue Joel. It has been a persistent disagreement between us. I think we all would benefit if we could clarify out two points of view.

God bless,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-21-2008, 11:58 AM

Another question would be:
5. Can a group of people be 'God's chosen people' without a covenant? Before Christ, whether they were obedient or not for periods of time, the nation of Israel was always under a covenant with God. Which covenant is today's "nation of Israel" under? What Scripture indicates that God has multiple, concurrent covenants running after Christ established the New Covenant?
It is my personal opinion that this is one of the most definitive arguments against the idea of a continuing "special status" of the Jews as "God's people." They are not in "covenant relationship" with Him because they broke the Old Covenant, and rejected the New Covenant!

Jeremiah 31:31-34 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: 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. [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, and I will remember their sin no more.
Richard

joel

01-21-2008, 12:07 PM

I really hope you would like to dig deep on this issue Joel. It has been a persistent disagreement between us. I think we all would benefit if we could clarify out two points of view.

I recall that we have resolved to do this before, but seem to get side-tracked.

I suggest that one on the places where we may "dig deep" is in Paul's explanation of "katalage", "katallaso" which only he discusses. That which is Romans, and that which is in II Corinthians, may be the discussion outline.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

01-21-2008, 01:29 PM

I recall that we have resolved to do this before, but seem to get side-tracked.

I suggest that one on the places where we may "dig deep" is in Paul's explanation of "katalage", "katallaso" which only he discusses. That which is Romans, and that which is in II Corinthians, may be the discussion outline.

Joel
Well, I would hope we could discuss it on a more "common sense" level at first, and then dig into the Greek if we find it necessary because of a failure to agree on the "plain things."

How about if we start with an answer to my first question in my last post to you? Here it is again:

Nearly two thousand years ago, the Apostle Paul wrote about a group called the "remnant" who were saved "according to the election of grace."
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. Who was he talking about? Of what was the "remnant" a remnant of?
I think it would help a lot if you could answer this question.

Thanks! :yo:

Richard

basilfo

01-21-2008, 01:33 PM

Hi Joel,
I would be very interested in your answers to my questions a few posts above. Your answers would help me understand the concept of how modern day Israel fits or does not fit into God's plan for the world these days.
Thank you and God bless you Joel.

Dave

joel

01-21-2008, 03:44 PM

A few questions for anyone believing modern 'Jews' living in Israel today are still God's 'chosen people' and will ALL be saved as Rom 11:26 says:

I do not believe that "modern 'Jews' " living in Israel today represent any thing linked to the out-working of God's plan with humanity as revealed to us by Paul.

Just because they have decided to settle in the land of their fathers does not prove anything to me.

The Jewish people, who are Israel of the flesh, have been temporarily set aside.

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

The "them" in the verse is the Israel that is spoken of throughout the entire testimony of scripture. God has not "shoved" them away as if to no longer use them. But, He has caused a significant change to occur in His relationship with the "world", "kosmos" because of His setting them aside.

In Romans 5, Paul speaks of two major changes that have occurred by means of the sacrifice of Christ; He has brought about "justification" through the blood of Christ. 2nd, He has caused a change in His relationship with humanity through the death of His Son, Jesus Christ, our saviour and Lord.
Even though he doesn't say so directly here in Romans 5, he explains later that a new creation has occurrd in Christ.

Here, in Romans 11, He has revealed that in the setting aside of Israel, He has caused a major change between Himself and the "world", which is the ordered system in which humanity operates.

He has set aside His son o the flesh, Israel, so that God's mercy could be channeled directly to humanity without going through the intermediacy of Israelite nation. This is accomplished by a "blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

In the first case, in Romans 5, all that were once "enemies" of God are now reconciled through the death of God's Son.

In the second case, Israel is made to be the enemy of the gospel during this era of grace (Romans 11:28). This is God's doing. Otherwise, the gospel would have to come through Israel, which, in times yet to come, will, in fact come through them under the New Covenant that He will make with the "house of Israel and the house of Judah" (Hebrews 8:8).

Joel

basilfo

01-21-2008, 06:57 PM

Joel,
I appreciate your general comments on your position, but unless we get specific, I don't think we will make progress.

1. Can Jews today (however you define them) die rejecting Christ and be saved at any point after their physical death? What about non-Jews?

The answer to these questions (and the Scriptural support) will go a long way to understanding the difference in our interpretations of who "God's chosen people" are under the New Covenant.

Peace to you Joel,
Dave

joel

01-21-2008, 07:21 PM

. Can Jews today (however you define them) die rejecting Christ and be saved at any point after their physical death? What about non-Jews?

Yes (this message contains the shortest # of characters to answer in the affirmative).

(I ask you, Dave, to show me the same courtesy and reply your answer in one word.)

Joel

basilfo

01-21-2008, 07:56 PM

Yes (this message contains the shortest # of characters to answer in the affirmative).

(I ask you, Dave, to show me the same courtesy and reply your answer in one word.)

Joel

No.

Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If the answer to my question is yes, as you said Joel, why did the apostles bring the gospel to the Jews? You say they don't need to receive Christ before death to be saved. I must be missing something.

joel

01-22-2008, 04:44 AM

Dave,

You are taking us a completely different direction, but, that's o.k., if that's where we need to go.

God judges the Jew first for his/her acts. This is God's perogative.
God brings the gospel first to the Jew. This is also God's perogative.

The Jews, through the Romans, had Christ crucified. This was in accord with God's plan.

The Jews rejected the gospel, this was also in accord with God's plan.

Any Jew when presented with the gospel, just as any other person, when rejecting the gospel, dies without the "salvation" contained and purposed within the gospel.

Death is not the judgement rendered by God for rejecting the gospel. The judgement of God for the acts committed while alive will be rendered at the time of resurrection.

The issue, as I see it in view of your question, is.......does God then grant eternal life to some and eternal death to others based on their acceptance and rejection of the gospel while in their life?

It is erroneous to refer to it as "eternal life". Why not just say, "immortality"?
It is "eonian" life, and/or "eonian death". Life that is enjoyed for the "eon".

I dare say that you and I are probably not on the same page there.

Death is the portal of the change that God provides......to us, who have been predesignated as members of His body, God provides the death of Christ.
To those others, He provides the "second death" which continues for the duration of time He has determined, and does not consume incessantly for ever as is erroneously taught.

Joel

eliyahu

01-22-2008, 07:51 PM

basilfo

01-22-2008, 08:46 PM

I can't answer all of the things above right now. But I will say that I know Dr. Brown and have thoroughly read his books and niether he nor I have been saying that being born Jewish gets a person automatically somehow saved or anything of that sort.

Also please carefully read the next chapter of the book which I will post right now.

Hi eliyahu,

Well, I'm glad to hear that we agree that nationality does not get you saved. But let's go slow. What about nationality placing you in the status of "God's chosen people"?? Can you provide any Scriptural support for God distinguishing between any people today based on anything other than their acceptance/rejection of Christ as the Messiah spoken of by the prophets?

I press this issue because I continue to hear in today's evangelical churches that 'Jews' today are still considered "God's chosen people". They say that the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant = today's "nation of Israel". But I can't reconcile that with the overwhelming teaching of Jesus and the apostles that it is Christ, NOT HERITAGE, that counts.

IMO, there is a BIG difference between the nation of Israel of the OT and today's nation of Israel. What made the nation of Israel unique and 'chosen' was the covenant that existed between them and God. That Old Covenant is'obsolete' and has passed away. There is no covenant between today's Israel and God.

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."
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

(Heb 8:13). 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.

Matt 21:43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it."

Where is there room in any of these Scriptures (or the entire NT teaching for that matter) for considering anyone who rejects Christ and under no covenant as His 'chosen people'?? The New Covenant is between a believer and Christ, and speaks nothing of any corporate/national identity. The NC and OC do not run along concurrently for 2000+ yrs.

Peace to you all,
Dave

joel

01-23-2008, 06:22 AM

Hi eliyahu,

Well, I'm glad to hear that we agree that nationality does not get you saved. But let's go slow. What about nationality placing you in the status of "God's chosen people"?? Can you provide any Scriptural support for God distinguishing between any people today based on anything other than their acceptance/rejection of Christ as the Messiah spoken of by the prophets?

I press this issue because I continue to hear in today's evangelical churches that 'Jews' today are still considered "God's chosen people". They say that the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant = today's "nation of Israel". But I can't reconcile that with the overwhelming teaching of Jesus and the apostles that it is Christ, NOT HERITAGE, that counts.

IMO, there is a BIG difference between the nation of Israel of the OT and today's nation of Israel. What made the nation of Israel unique and 'chosen' was the covenant that existed between them and God. That Old Covenant is'obsolete' and has passed away. There is no covenant between today's Israel and God.

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."
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.

(Heb 8:13). 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.

Matt 21:43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it."

Where is there room in any of these Scriptures (or the entire NT teaching for that matter) for considering anyone who rejects Christ and under no covenant as His 'chosen people'?? The New Covenant is between a believer and Christ, and speaks nothing of any corporate/national identity. The NC and OC do not run along concurrently for 2000+ yrs.

Peace to you all,
Dave

We all certainly see that Israel is "God's chosen people" throughout the Old Testament.

Our current issue which remains, and persists among and between us, is the future of Israel. Up and through the 4 gospels, and the first portion of Acts, Israel is still at the forefront of what God is doing, and they are awaiting the reality of the Kingdom of God on earth in which they were to play a vital role.

Yes, they had crucified Christ.
Now, in Acts, they were presented the gospel by members of their own race who had been called out of them. They continued, as a whole, to reject their Christ as they continued to the gospel.

In Acts, we know that God severed Paul to go with the gospel to the Gentiles.

But, in so doing, when we study Paul's letters in their entirety, and keep what he says in context, the question, then, concerning Israel, is;
Has God forsaken them in such a way that they, as a nation, will no longer be used by Him in the completion of His purpose?

If we use the texts that you have presented, what do we find?;

Galatians 4:22-30.....Paul uses the allegory of Hagar, the bondmaid, and the freewoman to compare and contrast the two covenants; the first brings about bondage, the second, freedom.
The text in which he uses this allegory is the discussion that "Christ" had not yet been formed in the Galatians. Even though they were "heirs", they were remaining under the elements of the world which were hindering their spiritual advancement. By placing themselves under the law (the covenant of the old), they were making bad matters worse because the old could not complete them.

Hebrews 8:13......In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. The writer of Hebrews has previous to this verse stated that the new covenant is made between the Lord, and the house of Israel..and the house of Judah (vs. 8).

Matthew 21:43....Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Jesus was speaking to the chief priests and Phaisees and elders of the people of Israel who were, at that time, awaiting the realization of the Kingdom. The Kingdom was taken from them.
But, the question remains, who represents the "nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" that will be given the Kingdom?

To say that the Gentiles are that nation, and that the Jewish nation of Israel is permanently discarded and that there will not be a "nation" of them under the new covenant on this earth is a stretch of reason to me that defies logic.

To say that the "church" is that "nation" is a mix and match that forces "round pegs" into "square holes".

Israel has been temporarily set aside. This is Paul's teaching in Romans 9, 10, and 11 when he sought to understand their fate.

I offered forth a few posts ago some discussion of the difference between the "casting away" of Romans 11:1, and the "casting away" of Romans 11:15. It would be profitable if we focuses again in that section. It is there that the "big difference" is explained.

Joel

Rose

01-23-2008, 10:04 AM

Matthew 21:43....Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Jesus was speaking to the chief priests and Pharisees and elders of the people of Israel who were, at that time, awaiting the realization of the Kingdom. The Kingdom was taken from them.
But, the question remains, who represents the "nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" that will be given the Kingdom?

To say that the Gentiles are that nation, and that the Jewish nation of Israel is permanently discarded and that there will not be a "nation" of them under the new covenant on this earth is a stretch of reason to me that defies logic.

To say that the "church" is that "nation" is a mix and match that forces "round pegs" into "square holes".

Israel has been temporarily set aside. This is Paul's teaching in Romans 9, 10, and 11 when he sought to understand their fate.

I offered forth a few posts ago some discussion of the difference between the "casting away" of Romans 11:1, and the "casting away" of Romans 11:15. It would be profitable if we focuses again in that section. It is there that the "big difference" is explained.

Joel

I think what we need to focus on is what is meant by "keeping Israel as a nation used of God". The Jews were called of God....they were God's chosen people, for the purpose of bringing forth Messiah.....and then to give salvation to the world.

They (the nation of Israel) have served their purpose, and those that are in unbelief are cut off the Olive tree and cast away.....but only until they choose to receive their Messiah, at which time they will be grafted back into the Olive tree in the same manner that all others who wish to partake in the Kingdom of God are.

There is now no difference between Jew or Gentile, the nation of Israel or any other nation on earth. We all come to salvation the same way, by accepting Jesus as our Savior. The purpose of Israel has been fulfilled, and now salvation is given to the world to bring forth the fruits.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2008, 10:04 AM

Good morning Joel, :yo:

We all certainly see that Israel is "God's chosen people" throughout the Old Testament.

Yes, and likewise we see that term is used only for Christians in the New Testament. I see nothing in the NT to indicate that God has two distinct sets of people that are rightly called "His people."

Our current issue which remains, and persists among and between us, is the future of Israel. Up and through the 4 gospels, and the first portion of Acts, Israel is still at the forefront of what God is doing, and they are awaiting the reality of the Kingdom of God on earth in which they were to play a vital role.

Yes, they were completely ignorant of God's intention to evangelize the world. At the time they asked the question about when God would "restore the kingdom to Israel" they were still ignorant that God had plans to fulfill His Gospel Promise to Abraham that he would be a blessing to the whole world and be a father of many GOYIIM (GENTILES). I am aware of nothing in the NT that suggests a future earthly ethnic political kingdom in the the land of Israel. Do you?

Yes, they had crucified Christ.
Now, in Acts, they were presented the gospel by members of their own race who had been called out of them. They continued, as a whole, to reject their Christ as they continued to the gospel.

In Acts, we know that God severed Paul to go with the gospel to the Gentiles.

But, in so doing, when we study Paul's letters in their entirety, and keep what he says in context, the question, then, concerning Israel, is;
Has God forsaken them in such a way that they, as a nation, will no longer be used by Him in the completion of His purpose?

I think this is a primary source of confusion on this whole issue. When Paul asked if God had forsaken His people, he was talking about their SALVATION, not their future destiny as a political nation amongst other nations of the world. That idea seems to miss the point entirely. Paul could never have wished himself "accursed" for such a carnal concept.

If we use the texts that you have presented, what do we find?;

Galatians 4:22-30.....Paul uses the allegory of Hagar, the bondmaid, and the freewoman to compare and contrast the two covenants; the first brings about bondage, the second, freedom.
The text in which he uses this allegory is the discussion that "Christ" had not yet been formed in the Galatians. Even though they were "heirs", they were remaining under the elements of the world which were hindering their spiritual advancement. By placing themselves under the law (the covenant of the old), they were making bad matters worse because the old could not complete them.

Hebrews 8:13......In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. The writer of Hebrews has previous to this verse stated that the new covenant is made between the Lord, and the house of Israel..and the house of Judah (vs. 8).

Matthew 21:43....Therefore say I unto you, the Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Jesus was speaking to the chief priests and Phaisees and elders of the people of Israel who were, at that time, awaiting the realization of the Kingdom. The Kingdom was taken from them.
But, the question remains, who represents the "nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" that will be given the Kingdom?

To say that the Gentiles are that nation, and that the Jewish nation of Israel is permanently discarded and that there will not be a "nation" of them under the new covenant on this earth is a stretch of reason to me that defies logic.

To say that the "church" is that "nation" is a mix and match that forces "round pegs" into "square holes".

It seems clear to me that God frequently calls His Covenant people a "nation." It matters not if they are under the Old or New Covanant. For example, in 1 Peter 2:9 God explicitly declared that the Church fulfilled the promises He had given to Israel in Exodus 19:5:
1 Peter 2:9 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

This is confirmed in Revelation:
Revelation 5:9-10 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; 10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
I see no category error whatsoever in calling the Church a "nation." Indeed, the final proof is that the Bible explicitly declares that Abraham was the father of all who believe in Jesus Christ, that is, the Father of the Christian "nation" and that is why God said He would make him a father of many "nations."

To claim that there is some sort of "mix and match that forces "round pegs" into "square holes"" is to misunderstand how the Bible uses symbols. For example, the Bible says the Church is the "Temple" of God. If calling us a "nation" would be a "mix and match" then what would calling us a "building" be if not utter madness? But we know it is not madness. We know that this is symbolic language that God has used throughout His Word. And this I beleive is the primary source of confusion about carnal Israel. It is a misunderstanding caused by a mistaken literalism.

Israel has been temporarily set aside. This is Paul's teaching in Romans 9, 10, and 11 when he sought to understand their fate.

I don't think that is Paul's teaching at all. Paul's teaching is that the Jews were not "forsaken" in such a way that they could not be saved in Christ. That's why he used himself as proof. There is nothing in Romans 9-11 that says Israel will rule as a nation in the future. As far as I can tell, it's just not there, or anywhere in the New Testament. Have I missed something?

I offered forth a few posts ago some discussion of the difference between the "casting away" of Romans 11:1, and the "casting away" of Romans 11:15. It would be profitable if we focuses again in that section. It is there that the "big difference" is explained.

Joel
I would be happy to discuss that distinction with you Joel.

Great chatting!

Richard

Brother Les

01-23-2008, 12:17 PM

Gen 49:1 ¶ And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you [that] which shall befall you in the last days.

Gen 49:8 Judah, thou [art he] whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand [shall be] in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee.

Gen 49:9 Judah [is] a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?

Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him [shall] the gathering of the people .

The 'Last Days' spoken by Jacob, was the last days of the 'world' of the House of Israel and the House of Judah.

1Ch 5:1 ¶ Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he [was] the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

1Ch 5:2 For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him [came] the chief ruler; but the birthright [was] Joseph's:)

The 'Kingship' was fortold to be 'Judahs' (The House of Judah), UNTIL Shiloh come. We all know that Shiloh (Jesus Christ) came in the first century and this makes 'The House of Judah' removed as a 'House' of leadership. As the Rghtful King and High Priest is only God.

But also, the Line of The Birthright did not go through Judah, it went through Joseph and then to his two sons, Ephraim (the younger son always gets the most 'power') and Manassah, his older brother. Ephraim 'is' "The House of Israel", Ephraim has "The Birthright". Ephraim is not 'a' Jew...Ehraim is not Jewish.....Ephraim is the son of Joseph...The 'House of Ephraim' (ie. Israel) became 'as' Gentiles and were 'removed' from the Old Covenant with God. But God pramise that 'a' Remnent of 'All Israel' would be Saved unto Salvation. There by as 'the Gentiles' came into the New Covenant 'as' Israel, but by a different name, Goyem (sp), The whole Tabernacle (House) of David was back together under The New Covenant.

1Sa 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

1Sa 8:6 ¶ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

1Sa 8:7 And [B]the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

1Sa 8:8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

1Sa 8:9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

'Israel' was to be led by 'Judges', no by a king. By wanting a king, they there by, rejected God.

God, in time, swept away 'The House of Israel' (Ephraim and Manassah and nine other tribes). God put them away and gave them a bill of divorce (read Hosea), but God promised to RE-marry them, under 'a' New 'Marriage Covenant'

Jer 31:28 And it shall come to pass, [that] like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.

Jer 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

Jer 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jer 31:31 ¶ 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:

Jer 31:32 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:

Jer 31:33 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.

"The House of Israel" was referred to many times as just 'Israel'. 'the House of Israel' became 'as' Gentiles. These 'Gentiles' were of The Blood of Abraham. The only way for 'All Israel' (House of Israel and House of Judah) to be able to come back into the Fellowship with God was through a "New Marraige Covenant", all who remain 'outside' of that New Marriage Covenant are not, in any way, in Fellowship with God. The combining (again) the House of Israel (gentiles) and the House of Judah (Judah and Ben) into the body of the Messiah, make up what is called 'The Church' (Plus, any 'Barbarians who believe in Jesus Christ and are brought into 'The Covenant').

The secular Israelis (they do not call themselves 'Israelites) are not of the New Marriage Covenant). The door is open and all may come, but only by Faith in Jesus Christ, will they recieve the Grace of God.

Brother Les

eliyahu

01-23-2008, 03:12 PM

joel

01-23-2008, 03:53 PM

I know what you are going to say. "We are his spiritual descendants, not the Christ rejecting Jews..." We are. But the Christ rejecting Jews still remain descendants and therefor in remain in Abraham's covenant in his flesh, circumcision.

Amen.

I, Joel, want to have it known that I agree with that statement.

The key to what you said is......"in his flesh".

We, in our flesh, are still descendants of Adam. As long as we remain in this flesh, we will still be a part of the old humanity.

In spirit, we are "in Christ", and as such, are part of the new humanity.

The Hebrews (Jews, Israel) are a distinct part of the old humanity. They are Israel. There is no disputing that Israel applies to them 100% in the writings known as the Old Testament.

The name, Israel, is mentioned 68 times in the New Testament (the KJV).
The word, Israelite, occurs 4 times.

It is the same people.

Where did it change?

It is not upon me to prove that Israel is still Israel. I say that it is still the same people.

Where does it say that Israel is now the church?

In the 60+ verses of the New Testament, where does it say that?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2008, 04:59 PM

Everyone is focused on the Old Covenant being passed away, etc.

What about the God's one-way, unconditional covenant with Abraham? The seal of the it was the circumcision in the flesh. It certainly meant something to God waho had commanded it from him and his descendants. The law which came later did not nullify the promises given to Abraham. It did not nullify the covenant with Abraham. That covenant is eternal. It was made with Abraham and his physical descendants.

I know what you are going to say. "We are his spiritual descendants, not the Christ rejecting Jews..." We are. But the Christ rejecting Jews still remain descendants and therefor in remain in Abraham's covenant in his flesh, circumcision. Abraham was not promised eternal life through the covenant. The New Covenant issues that forth. Abraham's covenant "in his flesh" remains eternally valid.

Hey there Eliyahu,

I think this is the point that needs to be "nailed down." The unbelieving Jews are "children of the flesh." God never gave any promises to them. On the contrary, all the promises were given to the children of the promise, as it is written:
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

This is confirmed in Galatians 4:28where Paul defines the "children of the promise" as Christians:
Galatians 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

Furthermore, you claim that the promise of Genesis 12 was "made with Abraham and his physical descendants." That is false. There is nothing there or anywhere else that suggests the promise of God was given to the fleshly decendents. On the contrary, Romans 9:6-8 directly contradicts that assertion. The Bible explicitly declares that the "promise" given to Abraham was the promise of the Gospel.
Galatians 3:8-9 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

I see no basis for any claim of special God given promises beyond the Gospel for any Jews based merely on the fact that they are the carnal descendents of Abraham. The entire Bible cries out against that doctrine. Paul explicitly refuted it in Romans 9:6-8 when he said that the children of the flesh are NOT the children of God and are NOT the children of promise. John the Baptist refuted it when he said:
Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

And Jesus Christ refuted it when He said:
John 8:33-45 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34 ¶ Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37 I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 ¶ They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

I just do not see any biblical basis to claim that "Abraham's covenant "in his flesh" remains eternally valid." It certainly did not remain valid for those Jews who rejected Christ to His face! He called them sons of the devil! Are you saying that they also were "His People?" If not, then how do you justify calling modern Jews who reject Christ "His people"? Could you clarify this point for me? And could you explain how it is supposed to fit in not only with the verses I just quoted, but with the whole thrust of the Gospel which declares righteousness through faith regardless of my natural physical heritage?

I think that the next chapter in Dr. Brown's book is quite clear about the fact that the Jews are still God's chosen people as taught by Paul in Romans.

I just finished answering Dr. Brown's chapter. As far as I could tell, he did not present any argument sufficient to support the idea that the unbelieving Jews are "God's people" in any sense of the word, except perhaps as a historical designation that they are the sons and daughters of people that God used in the past to bring forth the Christ.

As shown above, the Bible is exceedingly clear about the fact that the flesh is utterly meaningless when it comes to our covenant relationship with God. It doesn't matter who our mammas and our papas were. We go to God through Christ and that is the essence of the New Covenant, first made with Israel, and then extended to all the people of the world.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2008, 07:16 PM

Amen.

I, Joel, want to have it known that I agree with that statement.

The key to what you said is......"in his flesh".

We, in our flesh, are still descendants of Adam. As long as we remain in this flesh, we will still be a part of the old humanity.

In spirit, we are "in Christ", and as such, are part of the new humanity.

The Hebrews (Jews, Israel) are a distinct part of the old humanity. They are Israel. There is no disputing that Israel applies to them 100% in the writings known as the Old Testament.

The name, Israel, is mentioned 68 times in the New Testament (the KJV).
The word, Israelite, occurs 4 times.

It is the same people.

Where did it change?

It is not upon me to prove that Israel is still Israel. I say that it is still the same people.

Where does it say that Israel is now the church?

In the 60+ verses of the New Testament, where does it say that?

Joel
Hummm ... I've explained this so many times .... and I am not aware of any point that has been disputed, so I don't really know what to say. But I will try again in the hope that someone who disagrees will show an error in my logic.

The Christian Church began with the believing remant of ethnic Israel in the first century. Paul refers to them as the "remnant" in Romans 9-11. The part of Israel "in the flesh" that did not believe were NEVER given any promises by God because they were never consider "children of the promise." On the contrary, they were explicitly declared to be NOT the children of God. These unbelievers were cut off from the Olive Tree and believing Gentiles were grafted in. Every person in the Olive Tree believes in Jesus. A person is in the Olive Tree if and only if that person is a Christian. Therefore, it is an inescapable fact of logic and teaching of the Holy Bible that the Olive Tree represents the Christian Church, regardles of how you understand the meaning of the "root."

The promise given to Abraham was the promise of the Gospel. It was never a promise to the "children of the flesh." This is proven in Galatians 3:
Galatians 3:8-9 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Going back to the promise that was being quoted, we see that God promised Abraham that He would make him a father of many Goyim (Nations, Gentiles). It was NEVER a promise to the carnal children of his flesh!

This interpetation seems perfectly coherent with the whole Gospel teaching of the entire Bible. The idea of a promise to fleshly Israel fails on at least four counts:

1) There is no mention of it in the New Testament

2) It contradicts the explicit teaching of many Scriptures (e.g. Rom 9:6-8)

3) It contradicts the fact that carnal Israel, OT Law, the need for bloody sacrifices and a Temple made of sticks and stones were ALL types and shadows that passed away with the coming of Christ.

4) It contradicts the SPIRIT of the Gospel which teaches that the plan of God moves from the natural to the spiritual. It makes no sense at all to go backwards to types and shadows and carnal realities. The Gospel is spiritual and infinitely greater than all that.

Or that's how it seems to me anyway.

I would REALLY like to dig down to the FUNDAMENTALS on this issue. We've been going in circles for far too long, which indicates that we have failed to find our biblical foundation.

So lets agree to teach nothing but what is plainly taught in Scripture on this point. If anyone thinks the unbelieving carnal children of Abraham have some future blessing because of their fleshly status, then we need a thorough GOSPEL-BASED exegesis of Romans 9-11 and Galatians.

Richard

eliyahu

01-23-2008, 09:17 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2008, 09:56 PM

I just want to say thanks, Richard, for all the time and effort you have been giving this. I just don't have the time to respond to you right now and I have a lot to do here. I will have to get back later after I carefully consider all of your words. Your position seems much clearer to me. Writing out those two chapters took forever.

Hey there bro,

I'm really glad you understand me better now. And thanks for letting me know about your time constraints. Don't worry about answering right away. That's the beauty of web forums. Conversations can lay fallow for a long time and then spring back to life after folks have had time to reflect. Its really a good thing.

I know its frustrating, but I kindly remind you that Dr. Brown was writing those chapters as part of a larger book that is not chiefly focused on these issues. Just remember that he was not addressing you and others here on this forum. He is, however a world renown Bible scholar and among other things he is both an Evangelistic Apologeticist to the Jewish people and an apologeticist toward various Christian anti-revivial ideologists. This book was a prophetic wake up call to the Church. The overall message of the book is perfectly relevant to us all regardless of our beliefs.
I've never heard of Dr. Brown before. Thanks again for taking all that effort to type in his chapters to share his writings with us. Obviously, I don't see a biblical foundation for his teachings concerning the ongoing significance of being "born a Jew" but I also understand that I read only a small portion of his arguments. Now that I know his name I'll see if I can learn more about him and his teachings.

One last thought. Suppose a modern Gentile man rejects Christ and decides instead to convert to Judaism. This means that he would be considered a "full-fledged Jew" just like all the "natural born" Jews, just as if he had converted before the cross, correct? What then is his "status" now before God? Is he not simply a Christ denying Gentile, or does he now participate in those mysterious "special promises" given to the carnal sons of Abraham?

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2008, 11:27 PM

I was reading some articles on Dr. Michael Brown's website and found that he has clearly denounced the errors in John Hagee's recent book "In Defense of Israel." Though I disagree with much that Dr. Brown has written, I am encouraged to see that he is a real Christian with an orthodox understanding of Christ as Messiah. Here is the link to his review of Hagee's book:

http://www.icnministries.org/israel/defenseIsrael.htm

I also found Brown's book "Our Hands are Stained with Blood" on google books here (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=I3_XlAUeEqsC&dq=michael+brown+%22our+hands+are+stained+with+blo od%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=KMzg7GM2tE&sig=02rmVdgqC54plmNDhnc-kqZcPto#PPA123,M1).

Richard

joel

01-24-2008, 05:56 AM

The Christian Church began with the believing remant of ethnic Israel in the first century. Paul refers to them as the "remnant" in Romans 9-11.

The Christian Church (The Body of Christ) began with the believing remnant of ethnic Israel in the first century. That is not disputed.

"Paul refers to them as the "remnant" in Romans 9-11."

This is a point of dispute between us. So, here is where our beliefs differ.

Up to the point of Romans 9:1, Paul has painstakingly outlined what has occurred in humanity. He has clarified in Chapter 8 that those who are "in Christ Jesus" have the unique distinction of having no condemnation (8:1), and are not subject to any separation whatsoever from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus (8:39).

But, then, how is it possible that the remnant in the following three chapters is equal to the "Christian Church"?

Paul is clearly not talking about the church when he opens this dialouge. He says in vese 3 (Ch. 9); For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: (4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; (5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

That Israel is Israel. But, not all of them. Just because they are genetically connected does not mean that they are all "Israel". They must also be the children of promise (vs. 8).

It is the "children of promise" of Israel that are the remnant according to the election of grace (11:5).

Where in the three chapters does He shift subjects and applies all of what he is saying to the "Christian Church"?

He has clearly defined what applies to the "Christian Church" in the prior 8 chapters.

Justification and reconciliation are at the heart of the matter. In Chapter 11, he applies the truth of the reconciliation to Israel. It is there being set aside that has affected the world because salvation to the nations is direct and no longer, at this time, coming through Israel as a channel of God's grace.

Israel is not the "Christian Church". The remnant according to the election of grace in chapter 11 is not the "Christian Church".

Joel

eliyahu

01-24-2008, 06:59 AM

One last thought. Suppose a modern Gentile man rejects Christ and decides instead to convert to Judaism. This means that he would be considered a "full-fledged Jew" just like all the "natural born" Jews, just as if he had converted before the cross, correct? What then is his "status" now before God? Is he not simply a Christ denying Gentile, or does he now participate in those mysterious "special promises" given to the carnal sons of Abraham?

The answer is that the man would die a Christ rejecting Jew. If He converted to Judaism and also believed in Jesus as some people have done, he would die a born again Jew and be eternaly with his savior. If he diedas a Jewish convert and either believed in Jesus or did not believe, he would have died as a part of the people who are yet recipients of God's covenant with and promises to Abraham- though that would be of no personal benefit to a Jew who dies rejecting Jesus.

Brother Les

01-24-2008, 07:16 AM

Eze 20:38 And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD.

Eze 20:39 ¶ As for you, O house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; Go ye, serve ye every one his idols, and hereafter [also], if ye will not hearken unto me: but pollute ye my holy name no more with your gifts, and with your idols.

Eze 20:40 For in mine holy mountain, in the mountain of the height of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, there shall all the house of Israel, all of them in the land, serve me: there will I accept them, and there will I require your offerings, and the firstfruits of your oblations, with all your holy things.

Eze 20:41 I will accept you with your sweet savour, when I bring you out from the people, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye have been scattered; and I will be sanctified in you before the heathen.

Eze 20:42 And ye shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I shall bring you into the land of Israel, into the country [for] the which I lifted up mine hand to give it to your fathers.

This is not 'The House of Judah'....This is 'The House of Israel', which is the Northen Tribes of Samaria. These 'Sons of Abraham' were brought out from among the Heathen (former Assyrian empire) and into 'The Body' of The Messiah in the first century. The Christian Jews of Judah and Christian Goyem of The Northern House of Israel', all blood heirs and sons of Abraham of 'The Flesh', came backtogether to rebuild the Tabernacle (House) of David (ie. all thirteen tribes). But there is no Salvation 'in the flesh', only The Spirit. This should help explain the words 'first to the Jew and then to the Gentile (goyem)...these are all true blood sons of Abraham, all heirs to The Promise.

To state the 'Israel' is not 'The Church', just shows that you do not understand who all Israel is. The thought is just 'worldly' and not Spiritual

Brother Les

Richard Amiel McGough

01-24-2008, 08:58 AM

The Christian Church (The Body of Christ) began with the believing remnant of ethnic Israel in the first century. That is not disputed.

"Paul refers to them as the "remnant" in Romans 9-11."

This is a point of dispute between us. So, here is where our beliefs differ.

Good morning Joel!

I am glad you are pursuing this. It's very helpful when you narrow down the conversation to the precise point of disagreement. Thanks! :yo:

Up to the point of Romans 9:1, Paul has painstakingly outlined what has occurred in humanity. He has clarified in Chapter 8 that those who are "in Christ Jesus" have the unique distinction of having no condemnation (8:1), and are not subject to any separation whatsoever from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus (8:39).

But, then, how is it possible that the remnant in the following three chapters is equal to the "Christian Church"?

How is it not possible? Up through Romans 8 Paul was preaching the Gospel to Jew and Gentile alike. Then in Romans 9-11 he dealt with the difficult question of how God's Promises had not failed despite the fact that many Jews had rejected Christ. His answer was that God never intended to save every carnal son of Abraham, but rather only the ELECT, that is, the BELIEVING REMNANT of Israel.

The whole point of Romans 9-11 concerns the salavation of Jews in Christ. Those who believed were Christians. Therefore, the believing remnant of Israel spoke of in Romans 9-11 refers to the first Christian Jews who defined the Christian Church.

Paul is clearly not talking about the church when he opens this dialouge.

Of course not! He also is not talking about the believing remnant of Israel when he opens that dialouge.

He says in vese 3 (Ch. 9); For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: (4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; (5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (6) Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

That Israel is Israel. But, not all of them. Just because they are genetically connected does not mean that they are all "Israel". They must also be the children of promise (vs. 8).

It is the "children of promise" of Israel that are the remnant according to the election of grace (11:5).

Exactly correct! It is the "children of promise" of Israel that are the remnant according to the election of grace (11:5). That is what I have been saying. The children of promise are the remnant according to grace and they were the first Christians. Paul the natural born son of Israel made this explicit in Galatians 4:28 when he said "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." You see Joel, this is the only possibility. In the beginning the Church was defined as the believing remnant of Israel. This was the Olive Tree into which believing Gentiles were later grafted.

Do you not see the perfect coherence of all Scripture on this point? What has my interpretation left out?

Where in the three chapters does He shift subjects and applies all of what he is saying to the "Christian Church"?

He never shifted the topic. He was always talking about the body of believers, and how God's Word remained true despite the fact that many Jews had rejected Christ.

The whole point of Romans 9-11 is that God had not rejected the Jews in such a way that they could not be saved in Christ. The Olive Tree analogy proves that he was talking about the Church, because he explicitly stated that you were in the Olive Tree if and only you believed in Christ. Is not the text perfectly lucid? Where is the ambiguity? The believing remnant of Israel was the nucleus of the Church (Olive Tree).

He has clearly defined what applies to the "Christian Church" in the prior 8 chapters.

The Christian Church was entirely Jewish in the beginning. The Gospel preached in Romans 1-8 applies to Jew and Gentile alike. The special application in Romans 9-11 was to explain in detail how God's Word had not failed despite the fact that not all Jews believed. The answer was that the believing remant of Israel were the first "branches" in the Olive Tree (Church), and that Gentiles could be grafted in through faith, and even Jews who had rejected Christ could repent and be grafted in. The whole section is just a futher application of the same Gospel message that had been preached in the first eight chapters. There is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles when it comes to salvation in Christ.

Justification and reconciliation are at the heart of the matter. In Chapter 11, he applies the truth of the reconciliation to Israel. It is there being set aside that has affected the world because salvation to the nations is direct and no longer, at this time, coming through Israel as a channel of God's grace.

Israel is not the "Christian Church". The remnant according to the election of grace in chapter 11 is not the "Christian Church".

Joel
The remnant according to grace were all Jewish BELIEVERS in Jesus Christ. And in the beginning, they were the ONLY believers in Jesus Christ. That means that the Christian Church was at first defined by them. This is confirmed in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 which declare that the New Covenant, which defines the Christian Church, was made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. In my estimation, every Scripture that touches this issue confirms that the Christian Church is the continuation of the believing remnant of Israel. Is there any Scripture that this view does not adequately address? It seems to me to be a complete and a perfect understanding of the relation between the Church and Israel. I would be very much indebted if you could point out any weakness in it.

Thanks Joel! It's great working with you on this.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-24-2008, 09:12 AM

This is not 'The House of Judah'....This is 'The House of Israel', which is the Northen Tribes of Samaria. These 'Sons of Abraham' were brought out from among the Heathen (former Assyrian empire) and into 'The Body' of The Messiah in the first century. The Christian Jews of Judah and Christian Goyem of The Northern House of Israel', all blood heirs and sons of Abraham of 'The Flesh', came backtogether to rebuild the Tabernacle (House) of David (ie. all thirteen tribes). But there is no Salvation 'in the flesh', only The Spirit. This should help explain the words 'first to the Jew and then to the Gentile (goyem)...these are all true blood sons of Abraham, all heirs to The Promise.

To state the 'Israel' is not 'The Church', just shows that you do not understand who all Israel is. The thought is just 'worldly' and not Spiritual

Brother Les
Very well stated Brother Les! :thumb:

I would add that the unification of the two houses in Christ at Pentecost fulfilled Ezekiel 37:
Ezekiel 37:1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, 2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. 3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. 4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. 5 Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. 7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. 8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. 9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. 11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you [PENTECOST!], and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, saith the LORD. 15 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: 17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. 18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these? 19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand. 20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes. 21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: [PENTECOST! Jews came from "every nation under heaven" ...] 22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king [CHRIST] shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: 23 Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them [THE GOSPEL!]: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. [FULFILLED IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, 2 COR 6:16] 24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd [CHRIST]: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. 25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever [CHRIST]. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them [THE NEW COVENANT]: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people. [FULFILLED IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, the NEW JERUSALEM] 28 And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.

It seems to me that this interpretation perfectly coheres with every verse that touches this issue. I would be very much interested if anyone can find any refutation of this interpretation that can be sustained from Scripture.

Richard

joel

01-24-2008, 02:46 PM

The whole point of Romans 9-11 concerns the salavation of Jews in Christ. Those who believed were Christians. Therefore, the believing remnant of Israel spoke of in Romans 9-11 refers to the first Christian Jews who defined the Christian Church.

Richard, the salvation of the elected remnant of Israel in Romans 9-11 is surely a point, but not the whole point as you contend. Yes, the first Christian Jews were called out while the others rejected the gospel.

The focus of the three chapters is the sovereignty of God in His dealings with the Israelites. This is where we have our differences. You say that the whole point of chapters 9-11 is salvation of the Jews who became Christians. I have no difference with you about the fact that a remnant of Jews believed and became a part of the church.

Where we differ is that I do not see this as an end to them as a people as you seem to see it.

The sovereignty of God's dealings with them is such that He makes choices according to His purposes. The remnant chosen then does not preclude the choice of yet others in the future who will fulfill yet another facet of His purposes.

It was His choice that some were to be vessels of indignation, while others were to be vessels of mercy. This divine perogative may also be demonstrated in the future in a more outward and obvious manner when His indignation is visited upon humanity as depicted in the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Joel

Brother Les

01-24-2008, 03:39 PM

Lev 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Jerusalem is 'the daughter of mother Israel and she played 'The Whore' and those who did not 'come out' of 'Her', were burned....and stoned...

Brother Les

Richard Amiel McGough

01-24-2008, 07:41 PM

Richard, the salvation of the elected remnant of Israel in Romans 9-11 is surely a point, but not the whole point as you contend. Yes, the first Christian Jews were called out while the others rejected the gospel.

The focus of the three chapters is the sovereignty of God in His dealings with the Israelites. This is where we have our differences. You say that the whole point of chapters 9-11 is salvation of the Jews who became Christians. I have no difference with you about the fact that a remnant of Jews believed and became a part of the church.

Hi Joel,

Perhaps it would be helpful to come to an agreement about what the "point" of Romans 9-11 really is. I base my view on the fact that Paul begins with his heartbreaking agony for the salvation in Christ of his brethren after the flesh, and it ends by summing up his entire argument by saying that unbelieving Jews could be grafted back in to the Olive Tree (Church) if they converted to Christ, and that this would be the "manner" in which "all Israel will be saved." From beginning to end, the topic of Romans 9-11 is the salvation of Israel in Christ. I am not aware of anything in those chapters that says anything about a future role of ethnic Israel.

As for your statement that "I have no difference with you about the fact that a remnant of Jews believed and became a part of the church." I note a serious misunderstanding in that statement. The first believing Jews did not become "a part of the church." They were the Church. The Church is God's New Covenant people, just like Israel was God's Old Covenant people. When the New Covenant came, the Old Covenant people either upgraded to the New and became Christians, or they were cut off just like a man who refused to adhere to the Old Covenant would have been cut off from that Covenant people back then.

You seem to have a "three groups" view that sees humanity divided into Jews, Gentiles, and the Church. That does not seem to be the way the New Testament describes things. In the New Testament, you are either in Adam or in Christ. It means nothing if you are a Jew or Gentle.

Where we differ is that I do not see this as an end to them as a people as you seem to see it.

Does the Bible teach what you believe? If not, why do you believe it? If so, why do you not show me where it is taught?

The sovereignty of God's dealings with them is such that He makes choices according to His purposes. The remnant chosen then does not preclude the choice of yet others in the future who will fulfill yet another facet of His purposes.
Correct, it does not preclude it. But it also appears that God has not revealed anything about a "future remnant" that He may or may not (according to his sovereign choice) choose to use in "yet another facet of His purposes." So my question is this: if God has not revealed it in His Word, why teach or believe it?

Richard

basilfo

01-24-2008, 09:49 PM

Thanks for this great discussion Richard and Joel. The understanding of what Scripture says about who modern day Israel is - or is not - is essential to getting one's eschatology correct. Your statement below, Richard, hits the nail on the head:

The first believing Jews did not become "a part of the church." They were the Church. The Church is God's New Covenant people, just like Israel was God's Old Covenant people. When the New Covenant came, the Old Covenant people either upgraded to the New and became Christians, or they were cut off just like a man who refused to adhere to the Old Covenant would have been cut off from that Covenant people back then.

I have tried to explain this to some of my pre-mill dispy friends. I don't see ANY distinction taught under the NC other than believers and non-believers. Period. Followers of God during the transition from OC to NC were BY DEFINITION believers in Christ.

We think too much today in terms of 'Christians' and 'Jews'. 'Two religions' as the world sees it. But it is really one smooth continuous faith in the one true God, who, at His appointed time in history, provided His Son as the Messiah - for all to accept - no matter their heritage.

Geneology became irrelevent after Christ. And Paul gave us the olive tree and its branches as the perfect illustration. He describes only 2 kinds of branches. And, although a branch can be natural or grafted, it is only on the tree through faith in Christ - not based on it's original type.

I can't find a single teaching of Jesus or the apostles that those who die rejecting Christ are separated into 2 catagories: Gentiles who are lost, and 'Jews' who will 'all be saved' sometime in the future. If that was true, why would the Gospel be brought to Israel so stridently by Jesus and the apostles? Why did John the Baptist cry out for them to 'Repent and be baptized'? Who was he warning about being burned up as the chaff if 'all Israel shall be saved'?

Peace to you,
Dave

Trumpet

01-24-2008, 09:51 PM

Hi guys,

Richard said:

When the New Covenant came, the Old Covenant people either upgraded to the New and became Christians, or they were cut off just like a man who refused to adhere to the Old Covenant would have been cut off from that Covenant people back then.

Upgrade is a very good way to explain this!

basilfo

01-24-2008, 10:02 PM

Where we differ is that I do not see this as an end to them as a people as you seem to see it.

Hi Joel,
Isn't it true that their distinction as 'a people', or a 'chosen people' was because they were under a covenant with God? If so, what covenant are they under today? My understanding is that there is only one covenant in existance today - the New Covenant - established in Christ. This is based on much Scripture (Heb 8:13 and Gal 4 to name a few).

Some people today have traces of 'Hebrew' ancestry, but unless you can show that their covenant is still running concurrently along side the New Covenant, that ancestry has no relevence covenantally.

Peace to you,
Dave

Trumpet

01-24-2008, 11:21 PM

Hi again,

How many people know of where the Northern tribes dispersed to? I know, some of you may say, "What does it matter?" Well, it may go a long way for Joel and Richard's arguement. I see where Joel is not willing to cast aside the old promises. And I see where Richard is saying that the old promises were more or less swallowed up in the New Covenant. Les is correct in his statements too. But I've seen where God took care of the problem long ago, yet most of Christianity is blind to the resolution of it.

The tribe of Judah, along with Benjamin were the only Jews left in the land at the time of Jesus. 126 years BC the Edomites were conquered by the John Hyrcanus of Judah, and he forced the Edomites to become Jews if they were to remain in their land. And the Edomites did just that, and Josephus says that the Edomites effectively became Jews. So the Jews of Jesus' day were a mixture of Judah , Benjamin, and the Edomites. The ten northern tribes had been out of the land of Israel for hundreds of years by then. They had dispersed from Assyria, and a large segment of them can be traced to Northern Europe and America. The Jews of the 1st century were finally almost eliminated.

In Leviticus 26:40-43 God says that if they accept the punishment of their iniquity and humble themselves, and confess their iniquity, then God will remember the former covenants made with their fathers, including the land issue.(vs.42) BUT.... the people of Judah never have repented of this iniquity! God gave them Jesus, and they did not accept Him as a country or religion or people. So their Temple AND city, AND most of their people were destroyed, and they were driven off. They never repented of this, and God's Word says that the only way He will bless their return is AFTER repentance. So any Jew that has returned to the land has done so under their own fortitude WITHOUT God's blessing.

Now in many scriptures, the Edomites are judged with bloodshed. Look at Isaiah 34:5-10, Obadiah, Malachi 1:1-4, and parts of Ezekiel 35 and 36. The only problem here, is that they have disappeared as a people and nation, without these prophecies being fulfilled! And these are some very serious judgments from God. BUT.....

God has pulled a sneaky one on us all. The birthright and ownership of the land was taken by Jacob by trickery. It belonged to Esau (who the Edomites descended from), even though God hated him. But God honors His Word until laws are broken, not through trickery. So Esau still technically has claim to the land. What God has set up is this: The descendants of Jacob (the trickster) have dispersed into Europe, England and America, and the title to the Holy Land with them. The title always belongs to the head of the tribe, which in this case became Joseph's. The Holy Land has passed through many ownerships by military conquest since the 1st century. But eventually, Britain had claim to it in 1917. Britain is one of the places of the dispersion of the tribe of Joseph. The Judahites were never allowed back to the land according to Leviticus, but the descendants of Judah and the Edomites that had been swallowed up by Judah, returned to the land after WWII, and Britain allowed the ownership to pass to these people by rule of the UN in 1948. So here we have a twist, in that God has allowed the ownership of the land to pass back to Esau's descendants, AND the rebellious Judahites, from the descendant tribe of Joseph. So the Jacob Esau trickery has been reversed.

Now I realize that many of you are going to cringe at this, because you have taken prophecy and squeezed it into a certain time period, and others, if they knew my address may wish to place a device under my car, but that's ok. I'm not anti-semitic! Read the prophecies about Edom. They have never been fulfilled! And the twist of the whole thing is that they are due judgment. And there are countries lining up right now to carry out this judgment. And they are developing nuclear weapons. Now some would say, "God has blessed the nation of Israel in their attainment of their country and in the wars that they have struggled through!" Well,...there's often only a slight difference between blessing and allowance, and only those with Spiritual discernment often see the difference.

Another twist in this whole thing, is, that the REAL physical Israelites in blood line live among us as Christians already. I personally have spent a considerable amount of time tracing my own ancestry, and I have found that my lineage goes back to the Jews that went from Assyria all the way to modern day Spain, then to Ireland, and finally to America. So I found that I am one of the true Israelite, not only in Spirit through Jesus, but through blood also. So God is about to take care of a problem of rebellion and at the same time He has had the blood line thing solved for centuries already. The Jews in Israel are a rebellious people, living there without obeying God's law, and they are mixed with the descendants of Esau that God said He will judge! They have led Christianity to believe that Israel is owed to them, but in reality, the Jews there have no claim to that land whatsoever! The claim belongs to Esau once again.

God Bless Don

Richard Amiel McGough

01-24-2008, 11:58 PM

Another twist in this whole thing, is, that the REAL physical Israelites in blood line live among us as Christians already. I personally have spent a considerable amount of time tracing my own ancestry, and I have found that my lineage goes back to the Jews that went from Assyria all the way to modern day Spain, then to Ireland, and finally to America. So I found that I am one of the true Israelite, not only in Spirit through Jesus, but through blood also.

Hey there Don,

You brought up a lot of very interesting ideas that I would like to discuss, but first I'd like to isolate this one point concerning the existence of "REAL physical Israelites in blood line living among us." I see an insuperable problem with that idea. Since the "Israelites" don't know who they are, they are freely interbreeding with Gentiles. This has been going on for over 2000 years, which means that everyone on the planet, except those who live in very isolated areas, are "REAL physical Israelites in blood line" - it's just that we all are only 0.000000000001% Israelite, and all the descendants of the "REAL physical Israelites" that were living 2000 years ago are now 99.9999999999% GENTILE.

A total genetic mix has happened. After the tribes of Israel lost their knowledge of their own identity they could not help but interbreed with Gentiles. They now have been genetically mixed with the Gentiles so thoroughly that the no longer exist as a separate genetic group. They have annihilated themselves by mixing with the Gentiles.

I would be very interested to know what you think of this point. In your research into your own genealogy, how many of your ancestors knew they were of Israel? How many were Gentiles? What percentage "Israelite" are you?

Richard

Trumpet

01-25-2008, 12:36 AM

joel

01-25-2008, 05:22 AM

From beginning to end, the topic of Romans 9-11 is the salvation of Israel in Christ. I am not aware of anything in those chapters that says anything about a future role of ethnic Israel.

Let us be even more specific; service to God, serving God in such a way that He is magnified. He saves, so that proper service by the vessel can be attained.

If salvation is the final goal, then we are at the center of His plan.

Paul opens his Romans letter by stating the goal of his proclamation of the gospel to the nations; "....for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:" (Romans 1:5). He says in 1:9; For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son,....

The Jewish people had the outward service as their portion in the Old Testament, but, they had not the inward.

We, now, have the inward, but have no outward formal service, even though the multi-faceted "service" of the "Christian church" is evident throughout the world, and continuing in time up til now.

We now have His spirit within us. This is the distinguishing feature of those of us of the nations who have been called out to serve Him in this era.

As we attempt to clearly state our beliefs, it is this area, service to God, where we differ.

Romans 9-11 speaks to me that Israel, which once had the service to God, has not been permanently "forsaken". To me, in contradistinction to you, the olive tree is symbolic of service. I do not disagree with you that service in this era is only through the body of Christ. Yes, that is a fact. Anyone, Jew or Greek, who is called into service now is called to see the saviour and believe what Paul has outlined in the first 8 chapters of his letter.

Paul discloses in Romans 9 that service to God can be both as a vessel of honour and as a vessel of dishonour. Through His vessels of "wrath", in which He reveals His power, He, by the delay of His revelation, reveals His longsuffering. (9:21-22).

He reveals "the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." (9:23)

We, today, are the "vessels of mercy". 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles..

We, the called out vessels of mercy, are the "my people" which we formerly "not my people".

They, those who were "my people" in the former time "stumbled at the stumblingstone". They were offended at the gospel.

And, now, what has taken place was forseen by Moses...."I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you." (10:19).

And through Esaias was said; "I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me." (10:20).

But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God Forbid,....

He is calling today a remnant out of His people, Israel, to be members of the body of Christ.

They (Israel), as a people, are a vessel of indignation. There is no doubt that a very clear expression of this was domonstrated at 70 A.D. That is not disputed.
We, His body, are a vessel of mercy........by His sovereign choice, as a display of His mercy.

But, this does not prove that He is finished with them as a people. This, to me, is the burden of Paul's grief concerning them.

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel,....(11:2).

God has still a very definite demonstration of His wrath but the body of Christ has not been called to experience this as His vessels of mercy.

It is not difficult for me to believe that God knows very well who are the elect of the twelve tribes of Israel who will be brought through the wrath that is to come.

This will demonstrate His power in a way heretofore held back.

Why? Because His covenant, His new covenant which is currently demonstrated in the Lord's Supper which is a celebration of His death, will be consummated with them when......"there shall come out of Zion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (11:26b, 27).

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (11:29).

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all(11:32).

Joel

eliyahu

01-25-2008, 06:30 AM

Hey there Don,

You brought up a lot of very interesting ideas that I would like to discuss, but first I'd like to isolate this one point concerning the existence of "REAL physical Israelites in blood line living among us." I see an insuperable problem with that idea. Since the "Israelites" don't know who they are, they are freely interbreeding with Gentiles. This has been going on for over 2000 years, which means that everyone on the planet, except those who live in very isolated areas, are "REAL physical Israelites in blood line" - it's just that we all are only 0.000000000001% Israelite, and all the descendants of the "REAL physical Israelites" that were living 2000 years ago are now 99.9999999999% GENTILE.

A total genetic mix has happened. After the tribes of Israel lost their knowledge of their own identity they could not help but interbreed with Gentiles. They now have been genetically mixed with the Gentiles so thoroughly that the no longer exist as a separate genetic group. They have annihilated themselves by mixing with the Gentiles.

Richard

Actually, it is an anti-Semitic and unscriptural fallacy to suggest that the Jewish people have bred out any "Jewishness" since AD 70. I know that this has happened to many Jews in various places since AD 70. No argument there. But, that Being said, there are a plenty of Jewish people and communities which have been preserved in many places. There has even been genetic studies done to years ago or so which isolated the Aaronic gene in order to genetically validate the descendants of Aaron. This exited those Jews who desire a reinstitution of the sacrificial cult. These tests were publisized in secular, western science magazines which I read about it in as well as religious publications.

Also the sabbath and the synagogoue has succeeded is preserving many Jewish commuities. Just examine the numerous small differences between Sephardic Judaism and Ashkenazi. Right there is evidence of long periods of independant cultutral development.

Jere 31:35-36 says "Thus says the LORD... who gives... the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar... "If this fixed order departs from before me... Then the offspring of Israel will cease from being a nation before me."

The heavenly bodies still light the night sky on a regular basis. Therefore we must conclude that there are genuinely Jewish people still alive and well today, totally distinct as Jews. Breeding does not eliminate Jewishness as long as circumcision is involved. A convert is Biblically Jewish. If my ancestors were Jews but then I, my parents and grandparents aren't even circucised as Jews than I am not Jewish; though I have some Jewishness in me. I can get complicated and controversial but my only point is that the Jewish people definitely exist as Jews and were never corporately and completely "bred out" at any point in time.

Another piece of evidence is the original development of the Talmud and Judaism.

Another piece is the study of Jewish and Christian history and how the church often persecuted Jews as a policy off and on in various places. Though Christianity eliminated almost everything of various kinds of European paganism, Judasim still survived both in Europe, Africa, the middle east and even in China!

Trumpet

01-25-2008, 08:21 AM

Hi guys,

The main point in this insert of mine is not to prove that there are, or are not, full blooded Jews somewhere in the world. I believe that the majority of Jews have been bred into Gentiles, and that includes those that had the birthright to the land of Israel. The old tribe of Joseph. To try to prove who has it or where it may be now would be a never ending arguement, which I don't wish to pursue without more evidence.

My main point is the sin issue in the present country of Israel and religion of Judaism. They have sinned in that they refuse to accept God's provision of Jesus the Christ as their Messiah, and God said in Leviticus that He would not bless thier entry back into the Land unless they repent and turn from their ways. They HAVE NOT repented, yet have moved back to the land! This is rebellion!

Now it's also interesting that you bring up the Ashkenazi Jews, Eliyahu. These Jews are the ones from Eastern europe and their ancestry goes back to Ashkenaz, who was the grandson of Japheth in Genesis 10. Japheth had sons. Some their names were Gomer, Madai, Javan, Tiras, Tubal, Meshech and Magog. Gomer had sons who's names were Askenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.

Now Gog in Hebrew is Gimel Vav Gimel. Richard has written a whole chapter in his Bible Wheel book on this third letter. In carries with it the meaning of humility, and giving among others, and it also carries the meaning of recompense. One of the other words is Gamal, which means exile.

When the Jews were exiled, they have never been called back to the land by God because of disobedience. They never obeyed God by receiving His Greatest Gift. God doesn't violate His own rules! The Jewish returning to the land of Israel in the mid and late 20th century was not God ordained. Without repenting of the sin that they have carried for almost 2000 years, they are in violation. But they came back anyway!

The letter Gimel relating to a camel shows humility in the way that a camel does it's work, and bows down to carry it's load. But in reverse, the camel that is rebellious and prideful and refuses to do it's work stands tall and FULL of pride. So in Gog of Ezekiel 38 and 39, we see Gimel in it's opposite meaning, not humble,and giving, but standing tall and full of pride and taking what it wants, and therefore deserving of the other meaning of the letter---RECOMPENSE!

Here we have a people, full of pride, in that they go to great ends to be proud of their heritage, even to the point of threatening others with retribution from God if we don't go along with their plans. And their plans are THEIR OWN not God's! So in Gog we see the letters, PRIDE - and - PRIDE. WE have been tricked into believing that these are an honorable people, conquering a land that rightfully belongs to them, but in reality we see a prideful people TAKING a land that is not God given. They are out of bounds and headed for recompense! And this, yes THIS VERY THING, is spoken of in Isaiah 34:8. This is what is coming...without repentance. This is the Controversy of Zion and a REAL look into the true Gog, which are the people that have pridefully invaded a land not given, and Ezekiel 38 and 39 is what has happened, but the conclusion of these 2 chapters is about to take place.

I'm going to post a letter recently sent to President Bush by representatives of the Jewish religion in Israel. Notice the threats that it imposes. Notice also how they call US Meshech and Tubal of Ezekiel 38! This is satan at his best, twisting the truth!
__________________________________________________ __________

8 Tevet, 5768 / January 6, 2008

In the Name of the Lord, Eternal God

To The Honorable Mr. George W. Bush,
President of the United States of America,

Who comes seeking the presence of the Most High God, to Jerusalem, city of God, Divinely chosen site of the Holy Temple, eternal capital of our land, "the joy of the entire earth (Psalms 48:3)," may it be rebuilt and established speedily and in our days, Amen!

Esteemed Mr. George W. Bush, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38:1), leader of the west!

Upon your arrival in Jerusalem you have the ability to make a declaration, as did Cyrus, King of Persia - whose memory is honored - who in the year 538 BCE returned the exiled nations to their lands and recognized the full right of the Jewish people to reestablish their Holy Temple, the "house of prayer for all nations" (Isaiah 56:7), and called upon them to return to their land,

And in the manner of Lord James Balfour of England, who in 1917, called upon the Jews to reestablish a national homeland in the Land of Israel.

And thus if you truly desire peace and benevolence, and you would be counted in the company of the truly righteous, we call upon you to declare to all the world:

The Land of Israel was bequeathed to the nation of Israel by the Creator of the world. Neither could I, as a son of my faith, nor the Muslims according to their faith, ever take away even the slightest grain from the Eternal's gift, which He gave to His people Israel, the eternal people. Thus I call upon all the nations to save themselves from certain doom, to return and recognize That this land is the exclusive rightful inheritance of the people of Israel, as is written in the Torah of Israel, which constitutes the very foundation of our faith, as well as that of Islam; and is the basis for the decisions of the community of nations. He who denies this truth endangers all life on earth .

I shall dedicate all my strength and resources towards settling the Jewish people throughout their entire land. I shall greatly encourage and empower the Jews all over the world to rise up to the Land of Israel and to settle it, to establish God's sanctuary in Jerusalem, to distance strangers from it and thus, I believe, I will be making a major contribution towards world peace.

I cannot simultaneously support the establishment of a foreign state for an alien nation in the Land of Israel, and I will not lend my hand to this wrong.

Or - Heaven forbid - you can choose the second option - to willfully aid in the destruction, under the guise of peace!

You certainly know what the God of Israel did to Egypt and Assyria and to all Israel's enemies from time immemorial: Do you imagine that you will be able to save yourself if you have come to implement a plan that intends to steal the land of " the people that survived the sword" (Jeremiah 31:1), and to cut off those who survived the Holocaust, to rob the land that was given to them by the Creator?

All of the peace treaties and initiatives which have been based upon the decisions of the government of Israel, indeed the entire Oslo process, and the 'Disengagement,' and the establishment of a terrorist state within the Land of Israel known as 'Palestine' - regrettably, all of these agreements are the result of a lack of sufficient faith in the Divine promises that the Lord made to the patriarchs of our nation, and all that is written in the Torah of Israel.

Understand this well: the nations of the world cannot excuse their actions and their decisions on account of the weakness of Israel and her government. God ordained that the role of the nations of the world is to strengthen the nation of Israel. This will benefit all humanity and bring about world peace, as the prophets have foretold.

Do you imagine you can escape from the struggles in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Lebanon, by offering up sacrifices of the Jews who are slaughtered daily by their enemies who speak of peace but live by the sword?

Upon your arrival in our land we would anticipate that you bring Jonathan Pollard home with you. Bring him home to Israel. He is an emissary of the State of Israel, and he acted on behalf of our people. Authorize his immediate release while you are yet in Jerusalem, before you return to the United States. This will be a positive step that will build confidence.

Remember our forefather Abraham, who pursued the world's four greatest kings in order to redeem his nephew from captivity. We cannot forget the deeds of our patriarchs, whose example guides us through every generation.

We are the loyal representatives of the Jewish people, the New Jewish Congress, and its court of law, the Sanhedrin, as well as the Temple and Temple Mount movements, but we merely reiterate herein what is public knowledge.

No government in Israel and no representative of the Jewish people has the power or right to alter, by even the slightest degree, our covenant with God and the words of our holy Torah, which are everlasting, as expressed by the prophets of Israel and even by the wicked prophet Balaam: Then he looked on Amalek, and uttered his oracle, saying: 'First among the nations was Amalek, but its end is to perish for ever' (Numbers 24:20).

Thus any desire, plan or agreement that challenges the eternal sovereignty and active possession of the nation of Israel over her entire land is utterly worthless, and has no basis in reality.

Therefore it behooves you to declare: "I, George Bush, Commander in Chief of the armies of the United States of America, will instruct all of my troops to protect the Divine rights of the nation of Israel, and remove from her any threat. "

Before you is a choice: You can merit to eternal life, or be inscribed for eternal disgrace. Your fate and that of all those with you hangs in the balance of the destiny of our land. "and you shall choose life!" (Deut. 30:19).

In Sincere Supplication - In the name of the Jewish people

Rabbi A Even Yisrael Steinzaltz
The Sanhedrin

Dr. Gadi Eshel
The New Jewish Congress

Rabbi Chaim Richman
The Holy Temple and Temple Mount Movements
__________________________________________________ _____________

These are twisted statements and they are the fulfillment of a statement made by the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12

10) And with all deceivableness of unrigteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, (that Jesus is their Messiah), that they might be saved.
11) And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:(That they have been returned to the land by the blessing of God)
12) That they all might be damned who believed noot the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I believe that prayer for the people living in the Holy Land is in order, that at least some, if not all, will open their eyes to this deception before God's decree of judgment becomes a reality.

God Bless Don

Richard Amiel McGough

01-25-2008, 09:08 AM

Actually, it is an anti-Semitic and unscriptural fallacy to suggest that the Jewish people have bred out any "Jewishness" since AD 70. I know that this has happened to many Jews in various places since AD 70. No argument there. But, that Being said, there are a plenty of Jewish people and communities which have been preserved in many places. There has even been genetic studies done to years ago or so which isolated the Aaronic gene in order to genetically validate the descendants of Aaron. This exited those Jews who desire a reinstitution of the sacrificial cult. These tests were publisized in secular, western science magazines which I read about it in as well as religious publications.

Also the sabbath and the synagogoue has succeeded is preserving many Jewish commuities. Just examine the numerous small differences between Sephardic Judaism and Ashkenazi. Right there is evidence of long periods of independant cultutral development.

Good morning Eliyahu, :yo:.

I think there has been a slight misunderstanding. I was not talking about the Jews who have retained knowledge of their Jewishness. They have indeed managed to remain genuine "Jews" to a large degree, and the Aaronic gene helps prove that. But I was talking about the northern ten tribes of Israel that were scattered and who lost thier tribal identities. They simply do not exist any more becuase once they lost their identities they could not help but interbreed with Gentiles, and once the interbreeding begins, it very very very quickly dilutes the bloodline until there is no genetic identity left.

As for the few groups scattered here and there that claim identity as one of the tribes. I agree that they could be decendants, but I deny that they have retained their tribal identities or genetic purity. Simply answer one question and you will see that this is the only logical solution. What percentage of your physcial ancestory must be of Israel for you to be considered "of Israel?" Given the nature of population dynamics, nearly evey person on the planet can trace their lineage back to one of the ten tribes! They are like a drop of ink that dispersed into an ocean of Gentiles and is now very uniformally distributed.

Jere 31:35-36 says "Thus says the LORD... who gives... the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar... "If this fixed order departs from before me... Then the offspring of Israel will cease from being a nation before me."

The heavenly bodies still light the night sky on a regular basis. Therefore we must conclude that there are genuinely Jewish people still alive and well today, totally distinct as Jews.

That passage can not be properly understood unless it is read in context. And what does the context say? It says that God is talking about Israel under the NEW COVENANT! Here it is:
Jeremiah 31:31-36 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: [Fulfilled in the New Covenant Christian Church created by God from the first century Remnant of Israel] 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 [The New Covenant that defines the Christian Church was made with the Remnant 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 prophecy was FULFILLED in the Christian Church, see 2 Cor 3:3, 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, and I will remember their sin no more. [This was fulfilled in the GOSPEL OF CHRIST.] 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 [This defines the Christian Church, as it is written in Galatians 3:29: ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.] also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

Remember that Christ denounced some of the literal seed of Abarham as sons of the devil! And John the Baptist said it was pointless for Jews to appeal to their natural heritage because God could raise up sons to Abraham from the stones on the ground. The Bible is perfectly clear on this point. In the prophecy of Jeremiah, the "seed of Israel" speaks specifically of the true Israel that God would eternally save in Christ through the Gospel. The context proves this with total certianty, and this understanding is confirmed by Christ Himself, by John the Baptist, and by the Apostle Paul. It is the biblical teaching. I see no ambiguity in it at all, and I see no support for the idea that Jeremiah was speaking about carnal Israel. Do you? Can you support your interpretation that Jeremiah was talking about the unbelieving Israel as opposed to the believing remnant? I say "as opposed to" because we KNOW that the believing remnant of first century Israel all entered into the New Covenant and so became Christians. Why should we think that Jeremiah was ignoring the true Israel of God who believed Him and was instead prophesying about the unbelievers that God said He would cut off from His New Covenant people?That idea seems to be upside-down and backwards. It makes no sense at all to think God was focusing on unbelieving carnal Israel in the very prophecy that defined the everlasting New Covenant Israel that had received everlasting salvation in the Jewish Messiah.

RIchard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-25-2008, 09:32 AM

Hi Richard,
You are right. The geneological mix is quite thinned out by now. Probably close to what you have given. My lineage goes back through my grandmother, traceable to Ireland and a man called the Ui Maine Connacht, his last name Madden, who represented the Irish to King Henry the first. The Connacht were a people that came to Ireland some of which descended from people that came from the area of present day Spain, where many Jews had migrated. I have no evidence of the specific percentage of Israelite blood that I may have, but I use this only as an example of where some of the old 10 tribes migrated to.
Thanks Don, its very helpful to know the details. It doesn't look like your ancestory is really any different than anyone elses. The number of ancestors doubles with each generation (exponential growth), so before long they all overlap and everyone ends up having many common ancestors after a few dozen generations. It's inevitable because of the way people groups mix unless they are geographically or culturally isolated. But the ten tribes lost both their geographical and cultural isolation when they were dispersed into the sea of Gentiles, so they were unable to retain their identities as tribes and were swallowed up entirely and became Gentiles themselves.

So given this understand, what now do you think about your ancestory as opposed to that of others? Do you see my point about everybody being related to everybody else? If anyone went back far enough they would almost certainly find a son of Israel in their heritiage.

Richard

Trumpet

01-25-2008, 10:08 AM

Hi Richard,

Yes, You're right about the ten tribes being pretty much genetically void. But I still believe that it is possible for the original birthright from the line of Joseph to be still intact by someone. I don't see why lineage corruption over time has anything to do with it. Even Jesus' lineage had supposedly corrupt people in it's line. Just because we have lost the ability to know exactly who our descendants are, doesn't mean that God doesn't know the lineage. As far as we know, this birthright still belongs to Joseph's lineage, and only God would know who he has chosen to be considered the receiver of that. I'm sure that even the one who holds the birthright doesn't even know that he has it. I'm only saying this because God has not removed the birthright from the line of Joseph. I'm not trying to find this person either, I'm just saying he exists somewhere. It may even be that God considers a whole corporate group of people as holders of this birthright. This may be why in scripture, in some prophecies of Jacob and Joseph, the present body of Christ fits the scheme. Only God knows for sure. (I'll let you know if He wispers the answer as to who holds the birthright, in my ear!)

So in conclusion, I agree that the bloodline has been dispersed to the point that it can't be traced as we know it. But I don't agree that the birthright had disappeared through this process. It just can't be shown by the knowledge that we have, as to where or with whom it belongs.

Richard Amiel McGough

01-25-2008, 10:34 AM

Let us be even more specific; service to God, serving God in such a way that He is magnified. He saves, so that proper service by the vessel can be attained.

If salvation is the final goal, then we are at the center of His plan.

Paul opens his Romans letter by stating the goal of his proclamation of the gospel to the nations; "....for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:" (Romans 1:5). He says in 1:9; For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son,....

The Jewish people had the outward service as their portion in the Old Testament, but, they had not the inward.

We, now, have the inward, but have no outward formal service, even though the multi-faceted "service" of the "Christian church" is evident throughout the world, and continuing in time up til now.

We now have His spirit within us. This is the distinguishing feature of those of us of the nations who have been called out to serve Him in this era.

As we attempt to clearly state our beliefs, it is this area, service to God, where we differ.

As always Joel, it is very helpful to narrow things down to the essential point of difference. Thanks! :thumb:

Romans 9-11 speaks to me that Israel, which once had the service to God, has not been permanently "forsaken". To me, in contradistinction to you, the olive tree is symbolic of service. I do not disagree with you that service in this era is only through the body of Christ. Yes, that is a fact. Anyone, Jew or Greek, who is called into service now is called to see the saviour and believe what Paul has outlined in the first 8 chapters of his letter.

Yes, this is a point of difference, but I do not believe it is a point we should differ on. What I mean is, I think there really is clear biblical teaching here, and that all Christians should be able to agree upon it. It seems to me that the metaphor of the Olive Tree is used entirely and unambiguously as a symbol of the Covenant people of God in general, and with a special emphasis on the New Covenant people of God saved in Christ Jesus. How can we deny this point? The criterion of inclusion in the Olive Tree is identical to the criterion for inclusion in the Church. Peope are in or out of the Olive Tree based only on whether they believe God or not. The text says that "because of unbelief they were broken off" and that they could be grafted in again "if they abide not still in unbelief." I see nothing in the text that suggests that "the olive tree is symbolic of service." If you have faith in Christ, you are in. If you don't, you are out. It has nothing to do with service. That interpretation seem to me to be an awkward and unnatural invention that was required to force fit Romans 9-11 into the preconceived idea of a future for ethnic Israel that is demanded by futurist eschatology. No offense intended my friend! I'm just speaking plainly in hopes of come to the real truth.

Paul discloses in Romans 9 that service to God can be both as a vessel of honour and as a vessel of dishonour. Through His vessels of "wrath", in which He reveals His power, He, by the delay of His revelation, reveals His longsuffering. (9:21-22).

He reveals "the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." (9:23)

We, today, are the "vessels of mercy". 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles..

How then is the Olive Tree a "symbol of service" if both those that are in and those that are out serve? Remember also that Pharaoh was a "vessel of wrath." He certainly was not in the Olive Tree.

We, the called out vessels of mercy, are the "my people" which we formerly "not my people".

They, those who were "my people" in the former time "stumbled at the stumblingstone". They were offended at the gospel.

And, now, what has taken place was forseen by Moses...."I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you." (10:19).

And through Esaias was said; "I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me." (10:20).

But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away His people? God Forbid,....

And what does that mean? The context explains it perfectly:
Romans 11:1 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.
Paul's point was to prove that God had not cast away His people in such a way that they could not be saved in Christ. That's why he used himself as an example. He was an Israelite and he was saved in Christ. Therefore, this proves that God had not "cast away" His people. I don't see anything in this passage that supports an ongoing "service" or "plan" for carnal Israel. Do you? If so, could you explain it to me?

He is calling today a remnant out of His people, Israel, to be members of the body of Christ.

Yes, and he is calling all Germans, and Irish, and Chinese, etc.

But to be really accurate, we know that He Himself denied that carnal Israel is "His people" when He said they are "not the children of God."

I also must challenge the idea that "He is calling today a remnant out of His people, Israel." That assumes that there is a "remnant" of Israel today, and that God still calls them "my people." But the text actually says this:
Romans 11:5 Even so then at this present time [in the first century] also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
And who was that first century remnant of Israel that Paul spoke of as having "the election of grace?" There is only one possible answer. They were the elect of Israel, which means they were Christians. This verse is explicitly refering to the first century Christian Israelites. I see no justification for us to apply it to modern times and peoples.

They (Israel), as a people, are a vessel of indignation. There is no doubt that a very clear expression of this was domonstrated at 70 A.D. That is not disputed.
We, His body, are a vessel of mercy........by His sovereign choice, as a display of His mercy.

But, this does not prove that He is finished with them as a people. This, to me, is the burden of Paul's grief concerning them.

God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel,....(11:2).

God has still a very definite demonstration of His wrath but the body of Christ has not been called to experience this as His vessels of mercy.

Paul was concerned for their salvation in Christ. There is nothing to indicate that God has a plan for them as an ethnic nation. It's perfectlhy ok for you to believe it - my assertion is only that it's not taught in the Bible.

It is not difficult for me to believe that God knows very well who are the elect of the twelve tribes of Israel who will be brought through the wrath that is to come.

It is impossible for me "to believe that God knows very well who are the elect of the twelve tribes of Israel" for the simple reason that there is nothing for God to know! The Twelve Tribes do not exist. They annihilated themselves by interbreeding with the Gentiles. Each time one of them mixed with a Gentile, their genetic heritage was cut in half, and the Gentiles became a little more Israelitish, so now the Gentiles as a whole are 0.00000000001% Israelitish and the Israelites are 99.99999999% Gentile. There is no "Israelite bloodline" for God to choose from --- unless you suppose that those who call themselves Jews and have been careful to interbreed only with others who call themselves Jews actually represent all twelve tribes. That's a possibility that I am willing to admit. But the idea that the ten tribes are still "out there" scattered around like so many seeds ready to be gathered must be rejected.

And now that I think about it I realize that this whole discussion about genetics is vain anyway because Israel is not defined by genetics but by COVENANT. Gentiles could enter in to the covenant and become real Jews. And now that the Old Covenant has passed away, there is no definition of "Jew" anymore. This is why many futurist like John Hagee (no, I'm not associating you with him, my friend) have fallen into the dual covenant heresy. They recognise that without a covenant, there is no defnition of a "Jew" or of "Israel" and so they teach that Old Covenant is still "valid."

This will demonstrate His power in a way heretofore held back.

Why? Because His covenant, His new covenant which is currently demonstrated in the Lord's Supper which is a celebration of His death, will be consummated with them when......"there shall come out of Zion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." (11:26b, 27).

For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance (11:29).

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all(11:32).

Joel
I believe that the "then shall come out of Zion" was fulfilled in the first coming of Christ. That was the whole point of Paul's preaching. The Messiah HAD COME in the first century to save the remnant of Israel.

Thanks for the excellent conversation Joel!

Richard

Brother Les

01-25-2008, 10:47 AM

posted by Don

How many people know of where the Northern tribes dispersed to? I know, some of you may say, "What does it matter?" Well, it may go a long way for Joel and Richard's arguement. I see where Joel is not willing to cast aside the old promises. And I see where Richard is saying that the old promises were more or less swallowed up in the New Covenant. Les is correct in his statements too. But I've seen where God took care of the problem long ago, yet most of Christianity is blind to the resolution of it.

So the Jews of Jesus' day were a mixture of Judah , Benjamin, and the Edomites. The ten northern tribes had been out of the land of Israel for hundreds of years by then. They had dispersed from Assyria, and a large segment of them can be traced to Northern Europe and America. The Jews of the 1st century were finally almost eliminated.

Blessings to you Don. There is a 'sect' of Christians who call themselves 'The Idenity' movement. I do not advicate their teaching of 'The Disporia going through Europe and that the 'Anglo-Saxsons' are the 'pure' genetic make up of 'The Ten Northern Tribes'. They teach some 'truths' and then add a lot of reteric.

'A Remnent' of the Assiyrian disporia, came back to 'The Assembly', Body, -Church-, but many did not. There is a reason for the tern 'Lost Ten Tribes

Hsa 8:3 Israel (Northern Tribes) hath cast off [the thing that is] good: the enemy shall pursue him.

Hsa 8:4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

Hsa 8:5 [I]Thy calf,(their idol god) O Samaria, hath cast [thee] off; mine anger is kindled against them: how long [will it be] ere they attain to innocency?

Hsa 8:6 For from Israel [was] it also: the workman made it; therefore it not God: but the calf of Samaria shall be broken in pieces.

Hsa 8:7 ¶ For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.

Hsa 8:8 Israel (Northern Tribes)is swallowed up: now shall they be among the Gentiles as a vessel wherein [is] no pleasure.

Hsa 8:9 For they are gone up to Assyria, a wild ass alone by himself: Ephraim hath hired lovers. (Harlot Sister/Daughter, Samaira)

Hsa 8:10 Yea, though they have hired among the nations, now will I gather them, and they shall sorrow a little for the burden of the king of princes.

Hsa 8:11 ¶ Because Ephraim hath made many altars to sin, altars shall be unto him to sin.

Hsa 8:12 I have written to him the great things of my law, they were counted as a strange thing.

Hsa 8:13 They sacrifice flesh [for] the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat [it; but] the LORD accepteth them not; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins: they shall return to Egypt.

Hsa 8:14 For Israel hath forgotten his Maker, and buildeth temples; and [B]Judah hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof.

eliyahu posted
Actually, it is an anti-Semitic and unscriptural fallacy to suggest that the Jewish people have bred out any "Jewishness" since AD 70. I know that this has happened to many Jews in various places since AD 70. No argument there. But, that Being said, there are a plenty of Jewish people and communities which have been preserved in many places. There has even been genetic studies done to years ago or so which isolated the Aaronic gene in order to genetically validate the descendants of Aaron. This exited those Jews who desire a reinstitution of the sacrificial cult. These tests were publisized in secular, western science magazines which I read about it in as well as religious publications.

The 'Covenants', were not made with only Judah (Jews of the Blooda of Abraham and prosylites), The 'Covenants' (Faith and Grace, Marriage Covenants) were made with Abraham, Issiac, Jacaob and his thirteen sons/tribes and to all procylites. Yes God, Divorced (put away), the Harlot Samaria, but by Levitical Law (Marriage Contract), God could not 'put away' Samaias sister whom God was also 'married' to. Her fate as a Harlot (Jerusalems), from the Levitical Law, was only death....either by burning or stoning....'She' was 'killed' by both methods.

Genetics (geneologies) may have meant something in Levitiacal Law and Priesthood (Marriage). But it means NOTHING now, as the Levitiacal Law, the AAonic Priesthood and The Old Mosaic (Marriage) Covenant are now just a history lesson.

Jer 3:15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Jer 3:16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit [it]; neither shall [that] be done any more.

Jer 3:17 At that time they shall call ([I]New Jerusalem, Beulah Land ..BL) Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

Jer 3:18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

This is New Covenant language about Beulah Land and the New Jerusalem

'The Church', ie. The Assembly, The Body of God, The Faithful Rement, were always in exsitance in one form or fashion, from Abram to this present day. 'The Church' was not some 'creation' that 'happened' in the First Century, as 'a' 'Sect' only....and 'sect' is just short for 'Section' or part.....which is what 'a' 'Remnent' is.

Trumpet posted
My main point is the sin issue in the present country of Israel and religion of Judaism. They have sinned in that they refuse to accept God's provision of Jesus the Christ as their Messiah, and God said in Leviticus that He would not bless thier entry back into the Land unless they repent and turn from their ways. They HAVE NOT repented, yet have moved back to the land! This is rebellion!

Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but [that] rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed [his] hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye [to it].

Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood [be] on us, and on our children.

Mat 27:26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered [him] to be crucified.

I want to remind everyone that there is NO CURSE upon 'The Jews' today, any -more- or any -less-, that ANYONE else for rejecting Jesus Christ. The 'Judgment' of The Mosaic Law was passed and carried out in 70 AD

Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood [be] on us, and on our children.

When it says 'children' it does not mean generation after generation...forever, to the end of time (the Bible says nothing about 'the end of time'), it means what is says...the children of the peole standing in front of Pilate. They could not take 'responceability for generations down the line, only their ('This Generation', first century) generation.

Brother Les