Natural Children and God's Children [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

View Full Version : Natural Children and God's Children

eliyahu

01-22-2008, 07:56 PM

Here is chapter 13 of Dr. Michael L. Brown’s Our Hands Are Stained With Blood, The Tragic Story of the 'Church' and the Jewish People. Destiny Image, 1992. I thought that this chapter was even more relevant to our discussion. Read it and tell me what you think please. I could not include the extensive end notes. Unfortunately, all of the italics and bold items did't copy over correctly.

Natural Children and God’s Children

Romans is Paul’s theological masterpiece. In the fist eleven chapters, he lays out the absolute essentials of our faith. In the last five chapters, he tells us how to live. If we understand Romans, we understand the gospel.

It is in Romans that Paul demonstrates that all have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike. It is here that he opens up the incredible revelation of justification by faith. (Think of trying to understand that without Romans!) It is here that he speaks of our struggle with sin, our victory over sin and life in the Spirit of God. And then he brings it all to a climax with an in-depth teaching about Israel.

Beginning in Romans 9, Paul speaks of the special role of the people of Israel, his brothers, those of his own race:
'Theirs are the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen (Rom. 9:4-5).'

What an awesome calling!

But there is a question: Did God’s word fail? If the people of Israel were the special recipients of God’s promises, why have most of them rejected the Messiah? Why are they living outside the new covenant if they are the covenant people? Paul has a simple answer:

'It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended form Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children… In other words, its not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. (Rom. 9:6-8).'

Now that should have settled the question. There are natural children and there are God’s children. 'Natural children' refers to the people of Israel as a whole; 'God’s children' refers to the believing remnant within Israel. So there is Israel (the natural children) and there is Israel (the spiritual children). There is an Israel within Israel. It really isn’t that complicated.

We can draw a similar parallel with the 'Church,' (Please bear in mind that this is only a rough parallel). There are natural children (those born into a Christian family) and there are God’s children (those born from above into His heavenly family). There is the Church (all who call themselves Christians) and there is the Church (those whom God calls Christians). To rephrase and reapply Paul: 'Not all who are in the Church are the Church. There is the Church within the Church.'

But- this is of vital importance- pious Buddhists or Muslims are not the true Church. Of course not! The true Church consists of believers within the church, not religious people outside the church. It is only those within the Church (i.e., those who profess the Christian faith) who can possibly be the true church. In the same way, Paul never said that Gentile believers were 'true' or 'spiritual' Israel. It was the believing remnant within Israel that was the 'true' or 'spiritual' Israel. (Actually, the terms 'true Israel' or 'spiritual Israel' never occur in the Bible, and it might be helpful to completely avoid them.)

Many people have feelings and impressions about what the scriptures teach. But the facts are facts: While the New Testament often describes Israel and the Church in similar terms- both are pictured as the children of God, the chosen people, etc.- on no definite occasion does the New Testament ever call the Church, 'Israel.' In fact, out of the 77 times that the words 'Israel' and 'Israelite' occur in the Greek New Testament, there are only two verses in which Israel could possibly refer to the church as a whole: Galatians 6:16, where Paul speaks of the 'Israel of God' and Revelation 7:4, where John speaks of the 144,000 sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel. This is saying something! Seventy-five 'definites' and only two 'maybes'!

As for the verses open to dispute, in Galatians 6:16 the King James Version, The New King James Version and the New American Standard Bible all imply the same thing: the 'Israel of God' does not refer to the whole church! It refers to believing Jews. The same can be said for the description of the 144,000 sealed in Revelation 7:4. It most probably describes the final harvest of Jews worldwide. Elsewhere in the book of Revelation 'Israel' means 'Israel' (Rev. 2:14) and 'the twelve tribes of Israel' means 'the twelve tribes of Israel,' as distinguished from 'the twelve apostles' (Rev. 21:12-14).

Even if someone insisted on understanding Galatians 6:16 and Revelation 7:4 differently, everyone who knows anything about interpreting the word knows this: We never build a doctrine on just one or two verses, especially if the meaning of the verse is disputed! And who would ever dream of building a theological system on the foundation of one verse in the midst of a symbolic vision in Revelation? I lovingly challenge all who claim that the entire Church is 'Israel' to find two verses anywhere in the Bible that indisputably state this 'fact.' They simply are not there! When God said 'Israel,' He meant the natural children, either in whole or in part.

What about Romans 2:28-29? Didn’t Paul say there that Gentiles who believed were true Jews? Look carefully at these verses as translated in the New International Version (I have added the italics):
'A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly, and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men but from God.'

In other words, between two Jews, one who is circumcised physically, and the other who is also circumcised spiritually, which one is the real Jew, the Jew in this special sense? The answer is obvious: the one who is also circumcised spiritually!

But is Paul saying here that believing Gentiles are also Jews in this special sense? Most probably not. He is directing his argument to Jews, primarily to unsaved Jews, in Romans 2:17-29. Within that context he is defining who is the real Jew- spiritually speaking. And in the rest of the Greek New Testament, the word 'Jew' occurs over 190 times, referring clearly to ethnic, national Jews. More than 190 'definites' and only a couple of 'maybes'! Are there any takers for the 'maybe' position?

Even is someone understood Romans 2:28-29 to say that believing Gentiles were spiritual Jews (it is easy from the text to see why many Christians believe this about themselves) that would not change this important fact: Paul never said that natural Jews were no longer Jews. He only said that natural Jews were not Jews in this special, fuller sense. Just keep reading his letter! After making his point in Romans 2:28-29 (remember, it is one of the few times in the entire New Testament that the word Jew is used like this), he goes back to referring to all Jews in the normal way.
If you have any doubt, read the very next verse.
'What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way!... (Rom. 3:1-2)'
In other words, since being a Jew outwardly and physically doesn’t guarantee a right relationship with God, what’s the advantage of being a Jew, a physically circumcised, ethnic Jew? Much in every way, because God entrusted His word to His physical, natural people- the Jews! It really is quite simple.
If Paul were teaching that natural Jews were no longer Jews and that believing Gentiles were the real Jews, what in the world did he mean in Romans 3:9?
'We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.'
If Jews are not Jews and Gentiles are not Gentiles, what was Paul trying to say in Romans 3:29?
'Is God the God of the Jews only? Is He not the God of the Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too.'
And what then would be the meaning of Romans 15:27, if believing Gentiles are now Jews?
'.. For if Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.'
Clearly, Gentile means Gentile and Jew means Jew.
It is one thing to argue that once or twice Paul uses the word 'Israel' and 'Jew' in a special sense, referring to the whole Church as the 'Israel of God' and all believers as 'Jews.' (Although I personally disagree with this, I certainly wouldn’t call this position dangerous.) But it is another thing entirely to turn around and ignore the remaining 268 New Testament references to 'Israel' and 'Jew' and claim that Israel is no longer Israel and Jews are no longer Jews! That most certainly is dangerous.
It is one thing to say, 'Paul used the word ‘circumcision’ in a special sense (Phil. 3:3) to refer to all believers.' It is another thing to say, 'Those who are physically circumcised on the eight day are no longer counted as Jews!' Even the book of Deuteronomy recognized two circumcisions: circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart. But one did not negate the other! In the words of the internationally acclaimed Romans commentator, C. E. B. Cranfield, Paul’s statement in Romans 2:28-29 'should not be taken as implying that those who are Jews outwardly are excluded from the promises.' Absolutely not!
All of God’s covenants were made with Israel as a whole. No one can deny that. At Mount Sinai, He spoke to the entire nation! But only God’s children, the faithful within Israel, enjoyed the covenant blessings. And what does God say to the rest of the people? Does He say, 'You are no longer my natural children'? No! Instead He says, 'Turn back, O backsliding children; I will heal your backslidings' (Jer. 3:22, my translation). The covenant promise still stands.
As basic as this is, later Church interpreters went beyond the meaning of the Word. First they said, 'you see, it is not all who are descended from Israel who are Israel. It is the true believers who are Israel, and we are the true believers! We are Israel! It is not just believing Jews who are Israel. Everyone who believes is part of Israel too!'
What’s so terrible about saying this? Maybe nothing so far. But the next step was simply disastrous: If the Church is spiritual Israel, the new Israel, then there is no need for natural Israel, the old Israel anymore. 'Le them rot for all we care! They’ve lost the blessing forever. They crucified the Messiah. They blew their opportunity. In fact, they still don’t believe their own scriptures. They are no longer the covenant people. We are!'
To a great degree, the horrors described in the previous chapters of this book are a by-product of this very theology!
It would not have been a problem if Gentile Christians had simply said: 'God has expanded the borders of Israel! Now we are included among the covenant people since we are the spiritual seed of Abraham. And we look forward to the day when the Lord will restore the physical seed of Abraham too! The Old Testament ‘Church’ consisted of Israel alone, but the New Testament ‘Church’ consists of Israel and us. Together we are the new Israel!' Many devout Christians have held to this belief- and there is much truth to it- without for a moment thinking that God’s promises to the natural children were ever in doubt.
But for many Christians, the notion that the church was the new Israel meant that God had forever discarded His children after the flesh. 'Away with the old! The new has come! You Jews are eternally cursed!' Reinhold Mayer, the German New Testament Scholar, put it very simply:
'The path of Gentile Christianity turned from Judaism and led into Gentile ant-Semitism, which was on the increase after [destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C. E. ]. The prophets’ criticism of Israel was misunderstood as ant-Jewish and repeated irresponsibly. Even when the words were kept, their meaning was distorted to imply the opposite, and this served to sharpen the Gentile hatred of Jews.'
Paul knew how important it was for the Gentile believers to understand the place of Israel. That’s why he devoted so much space- three whole chapters of his most in depth epistle- to the subject of Israel’s divine call. Many believers say, 'Yes, it’s true. Paul talked a lot about Israel in Romans 9-11, but he was talking about spiritual Israel. Remember what he said: ‘not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’ (Rom. 9:6). When Paul said that ‘all Israel will be saved’ (Rom. 22:26) he really didn’t mean all Israel.'
Well, why don’t we let Paul speak for himself? Let’s allow Paul to interpret Paul. When he said 'Israel' in Romans 9-11, did he mean natural children or God’s children?

Romans 9:1-5- Paul had 'great sorrow and unceasing anguish' in his heart for Israel. Which 'Israel' did he mean? The natural children! But someone may object, 'That was before he said that ‘not all Israel who are descended from Israel are Israel.’ What about after that verse? Didn’t he change the meaning of Israel?' Let’s read all the remaining references to 'Israel' (and 'Israelite') in Romans 9-11. The truth will set us free!

Romans 9:27- 'Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of Israelites be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.’' Which 'Israel/Israelites' did Paul mean? The natural children!

Romans 9:31- 'But Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children!

Romans 10:1- 'Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.' Which 'Israelites' did Paul mean? The natural children!

Romans 10:16- 'But not all the Israelites accepted the good news…' Which 'Israelites' did Paul mean here? The natural children!

Romans 10:19-21- 'Again I ask: Did Israel not understand?... Concerning Israel He says, ‘All day long I have held out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children!

Romans 11:1-2- 'I ask then: Did God reject His people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew…' Which 'Israelites' did Paul mean? The natural children! The literal descendants! Paul was one of them. That was his whole point. He continues this though in the rest of the verse.

Romans 11:2- '… Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah- how he appealed to God against Israel.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children! It was among them that God had preserved a remnant (Rom. 11:3-5).

Romans 11:7- 'What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children! Only the elect, God’s children, those whom He foreknew, obtained righteousness, the others, the rest of the natural children, were hardened.

Romans 11:11- 'Again I ask: Did they [the natural children] stumble so as to fall? Not at all [Lat the Church repeat these words out loud: Israel did not stumble beyond recovery.] Rather, because of their transgression [the transgression of the natural children], salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children! And look at verse 13: 'I am talking to you Gentiles…' Paul is talking to the Gentile believers about Israel. He is not telling Gentile believers that they are Israel. And now we get to the heart of it all…

eliyahu

01-22-2008, 07:57 PM

Romans 11:25- 'I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of Gentiles had come in.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children! They were the ones who were hardened. And what will happen to this very same Israel when the 'full number of Gentiles has come in'?

Romans 11:26-27- 'And so all Israel will be saved…' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children! Glory and praise be to God! 'And so ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED, as it is written:’ the Deliverer will come from Zion; He will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them [Israel, the natural children] when I take away their sins.’'
The 'Israel' that was hardened in part is the 'Israel' that will be saved! The 'Israel' that did not obtain righteousness is the 'Israel' that will obtain it! 'Because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles,' because of 'their disobedience' the Gentiles 'have now received mercy' (Rom. 11:11, 30). Now, because of God’s mercy to the Gentiles 'they too may now receive mercy' (Rom. 11:31). And mercy they will receive!
Yes, Israel fell. But Israel will recover! Yes, Israel was disobedient and obstinate. But Israel will receive a new heart! The Redeemer will 'turn godlessness away from Jacob.' He will 'take away their sins.' This people that has received more than its share of suffering will be blessed in its final end. It’s time for the blessing to come! How great is the wisdom of God.
But there is a warning here as well.

'If some of the [natural Israelite] branches have been broken off, and you [Gentiles], though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others [the Israelites who believed] and now share in the nourishing sap of the olive root [Israel], do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you (Rom. 11:17-18).'
How insensitive and arrogant for the grafted in wild branches to boast ovet the natural branches.
May it be understood clearly and never forgotten: Gentile believers have been grafted into Israel’s tree and they are nourished by the ancient Jewish root. (In this context, the root is not Jesus, although in other Scriptures Jesus is called the root of Jesse [see Isaiah 11:1], and the Vine from which we branch out [see john 15:1-9]. But when Paul speaks of the 'root' in Romans 11:18, he seems to be referring to the patriarchs, the fathers of Israel.) It is true that the natural branches were 'broken off because of unbelief, and you [Gentile believers] stand by faith.' But that is no reason for pride. On the contrary, 'Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either' (Rom. 11:20-21).
Here is where the Church, which has been primarily Gentile since the second century, has made a big mistake. She has been guilty of boasting over the natural branches, forgetting her root and misinterpreting Israel’s hardening.
Because she has boasted over the fallen Israelite branches, she has treated the Jewish people harshly, even glorying over Israel’s suffering and pain. 'After all, they were cut off to make room for me!' Because she has forgotten her Jewish root, she has added all kinds of alien customs to the faith, often overruling the Scriptures with the traditions of men. 'After all, we want to stay clear of all that Old Testament stuff. That’s bondage!' Because she has misinterpreted Israel’s hardening, which was only temporary and in part, she has proudly thought that God replaced His ld people, Israel, with a new people, the Church. 'All the blessings are now ours… forever. As for you Jews, to hell with you cursed race!'
But the Church has not cursed Israel. The Church has cursed herself! The spiritual equation is simple: To the extent that the Church has recognized her Jewish roots and the rightful place of Israel, the Church has had light. The Dark Ages of the Church were the days of her greatest theological ignorance of Israel as well as the time of her most violent hostility against the Jews.
Paul’s exhortation must be heard again.

'Do not be arrogant, but be afraid… I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not become conceited… (Rom. 11:20, 25)'

Look at the strong words Paul uses: arrogant, ignorant, conceited. What a critically important subject for the Church to understand! Ignorance of God’s purposes for Israel breeds conceit. And a conceited Church is a Church resisted by the Lord, for 'God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble' (James 4:6).
Unfortunately, many in the Body today still claim that it is the Church alone who is the true Israel. One well known author has written at length and with great passion saying, 'Wake up Church! You alone are Israel!' Although he states frankly in his book that Romans 11:26 'is somewhat of a problem,' he goes on to say, 'but I think the Lord has shown me how it will fit in.' And what was the solution that the Lord supposedly showed him? 'Israel' in Romans 11:25 is different than the 'Israel' in Romans 11:26! This also means that 'Israel' in Romans 11:26 is different than 'Israel' in Romans 9:3, 27, 31; 10:1, 16, 19, 21; 11:1-2, 7 and 11:11, as well as different from 'Israel' in the rest of the New Testament! In spite of this brother’s obvious sincerity, God did not tell him that.
One pastor went even further. Writing on Romans 11:28- 'As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs'- this pastor alleged that the word 'they' in the first half of the verse refers to someone different that the word 'they' in the second half of this same verse! This dear brother is wiling to see the Jews as enemies of the gospel, but not as the elect of God, even if it means slicing the Word to pieces and engaging in a hopeless balancing act.
At this point I would like to make a proposal. Why don’t we simply accept the obvious meaning of the text? Why don’t we give up all our interpretive gymnastics?
God is looking for believers, not acrobats.

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2008, 04:52 PM

Here is chapter 13 of Dr. Michael L. Brown’s Our Hands Are Stained With Blood, The Tragic Story of the 'Church' and the Jewish People. Destiny Image, 1992. I thought that this chapter was even more relevant to our discussion. Read it and tell me what you think please. I could not include the extensive end notes. Unfortunately, all of the italics and bold items did't copy over correctly.

Good morning Eliyahu (well, it was morning when I started this post anyway! :lol:),

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post this. It contains some very important points that need to be discussed.

We can draw a similar parallel with the 'Church,' (Please bear in mind that this is only a rough parallel). There are natural children (those born into a Christian family) and there are God’s children (those born from above into His heavenly family). There is the Church (all who call themselves Christians) and there is the Church (those whom God calls Christians). To rephrase and reapply Paul: 'Not all who are in the Church are the Church. There is the Church within the Church.'

But- this is of vital importance- pious Buddhists or Muslims are not the true Church. Of course not! The true Church consists of believers within the church, not religious people outside the church. It is only those within the Church (i.e., those who profess the Christian faith) who can possibly be the true church. In the same way, Paul never said that Gentile believers were 'true' or 'spiritual' Israel. It was the believing remnant within Israel that was the 'true' or 'spiritual' Israel. (Actually, the terms 'true Israel' or 'spiritual Israel' never occur in the Bible, and it might be helpful to completely avoid them.)

I agreed with everything up to this point. But here Dr. Brown has introduced his funamental error of making a distinction between Jews and Gentiels WITHIN the Body of Christ. He bases his argument on the fallacious idea that there is some sort of ontological distinction between "Jew" and "Gentile." But that is entirely false. Under the Old Covenant, the ONLY distinction between "Jew" and "Gentile" was the covenant relationship he or she had with God. When a Gentile converted to Judaism, he or she became every bit as much a "Jew" as the rest of the community. Gentiles have always been able to be "grafted in" to the Olive Tree. The only thing that changed was the nature of the Covenant. Thus we see that there was no distinction WITHIN the covenant community between "natural" Jews and Gentile converts. Neither is there any distinction within the New Covenant community. This is the fundamental teaching of the New Testament. There is no racial or ethnic distinction in the Body of Christ.

Many people have feelings and impressions about what the scriptures teach. But the facts are facts: While the New Testament often describes Israel and the Church in similar terms- both are pictured as the children of God, the chosen people, etc.- on no definite occasion does the New Testament ever call the Church, 'Israel.' In fact, out of the 77 times that the words 'Israel' and 'Israelite' occur in the Greek New Testament, there are only two verses in which Israel could possibly refer to the church as a whole: Galatians 6:16, where Paul speaks of the 'Israel of God' and Revelation 7:4, where John speaks of the 144,000 sealed from the twelve tribes of Israel. This is saying something! Seventy-five 'definites' and only two 'maybes'!

The weakness of this argument is obvious the moment we look at the "77 times" that Israel appears in the NT. The first and most obvious error is that many of those occurrences refer to the LAND of Israel - it is a geographical term and does not refer to a people group at all and so has nothing whatsoever to do with the conclusion Dr. Brown is attempting to support. Second, 30 of the occurrences of "Israel" are found in the Gospels before there was a church, and so they too add no weight to Dr. Brown's argument. Third, most occurrences of "Israel" in Acts appear before Chapter 10 when the Gentiles were first grafted in to the Church (Olive Tree) and so they have nothing to do with the point that Dr. Brown is trying to support.

I could continue, but the point should be clear. A mere statement of statistics without any analysis of the actual context in which the words appear is the worst kind of exigesis and of no value whatsoever to discern the truth of Scripture.

As for the verses open to dispute, in Galatians 6:16 the King James Version, The New King James Version and the New American Standard Bible all imply the same thing: the 'Israel of God' does not refer to the whole church! It refers to believing Jews.

The problem with this arguemnt is that it directly contradicts the entire point and purpose of the book of Galatians, which Paul summed up in his grand conclusion saying "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." If Dr. Brown's interpretation of Galatians 6:16 were correct, it would mean that Paul first denies there is a distinction and then proclaims there is a distinction. It just doesn't fit at all with the plain and obvious interpretation of the rest of the book.

The same can be said for the description of the 144,000 sealed in Revelation 7:4. It most probably describes the final harvest of Jews worldwide.

I have never seen any solid support for that futurist view of Revelation. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the extremely obvious interpretation that the 144,000 refers to literal Jews who were sealed with the Holy Spirit (the Seal of God) in the first century, beginning at Pentecost.

Even if someone insisted on understanding Galatians 6:16 and Revelation 7:4 differently, everyone who knows anything about interpreting the word knows this: We never build a doctrine on just one or two verses, especially if the meaning of the verse is disputed! And who would ever dream of building a theological system on the foundation of one verse in the midst of a symbolic vision in Revelation? I lovingly challenge all who claim that the entire Church is 'Israel' to find two verses anywhere in the Bible that indisputably state this 'fact.' They simply are not there! When God said 'Israel,' He meant the natural children, either in whole or in part.
First, I would like to commend Dr. Brown for his insistence that we never build any doctrine on "just one or two verses." Amen! Amen indeed! That is why the entire futurist system must be rejected as unbiblical. God never confirmed the interpretation of the "thousand years" in Rev 20 and neither does it say a word about Christ ruling on earth, so if we adhere to the fundamental principle of biblical hermeneutics (every word confirmed by two or three witnesses), then we know it would be absurd and unbibilcal to preach a Millennial Reign of Christ on earth.

But getting back to the point at hand, and in answer to his challenge - the proof that Israel is the Church is obvious. The New Covenant was made with the House of Israel (Heb 8:8) and the New Covenant defines the Church. Members of the Old Covenant carnal Israel were cut off from their people if they broke the Old Covenant, and the same is true in the New. If they remain in unbelief, they are not members of the New Covenant community that began with the Remnant of Israel and now also includes Gentiles grafted in. What could be more plain and obvious?

Even is someone understood Romans 2:28-29 to say that believing Gentiles were spiritual Jews (it is easy from the text to see why many Christians believe this about themselves) that would not change this important fact: Paul never said that natural Jews were no longer Jews. He only said that natural Jews were not Jews in this special, fuller sense. Just keep reading his letter! After making his point in Romans 2:28-29 (remember, it is one of the few times in the entire New Testament that the word Jew is used like this), he goes back to referring to all Jews in the normal way.

Nobody is saying that ethnic Jews did not remain Jews in an ethnic sense. That would be absurd. Dr. Brown's pressing of this point seems to indicat a profound confusion of the basic issue at hand.

It is one thing to argue that once or twice Paul uses the word 'Israel' and 'Jew' in a special sense, referring to the whole Church as the 'Israel of God' and all believers as 'Jews.' (Although I personally disagree with this, I certainly wouldn’t call this position dangerous.) But it is another thing entirely to turn around and ignore the remaining 268 New Testament references to 'Israel' and 'Jew' and claim that Israel is no longer Israel and Jews are no longer Jews! That most certainly is dangerous.

The reason Paul did not generally use the word "Jew" or "Israel" for the Church was because when he used those words the context shows he was talking about ethnic unbelieving Jews which were NOT the church. This is all one grand confusion over a very simple point. No body teaches that the church "replaced" Israel. The doctrine states the ISRAEL blossomed into the Church. Or what? Paul ceased to be a Jew when he became a Christian?

It is one thing to say, 'Paul used the word ‘circumcision’ in a special sense (Phil. 3:3) to refer to all believers.' It is another thing to say, 'Those who are physically circumcised on the eight day are no longer counted as Jews!'

This confusion is tedius beyond description. No body says that ethnic Jews are not Jews. The point is that the Bible teaches that the Gospel promises were for the children of promise, which are CHRISTIANS whether Jewish or Gentile. To fail to see this simple point is to fail to see the Gospel.

Even the book of Deuteronomy recognized two circumcisions: circumcision of the flesh and circumcision of the heart. But one did not negate the other! In the words of the internationally acclaimed Romans commentator, C. E. B. Cranfield, Paul’s statement in Romans 2:28-29 'should not be taken as implying that those who are Jews outwardly are excluded from the promises.' Absolutely not!

OF COURSE NOT!!!! Nobody says the Jews are "excluded" from the Gospel! They can come to Christ just like the Gentiles. But they have NO special claim on the promises of God based on theri FLESH. That's why Paul used his own salvation in Christ as proof that God had not cast them away so that they could not be saved.

All of God’s covenants were made with Israel as a whole. No one can deny that. At Mount Sinai, He spoke to the entire nation!

Exactly correct. And what happened to those who refused the Old Covenant? They were cut off from their people. Exactly the same pattern is seen in the New Covenant. God made the covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. He fulfilled Ezekiel 37 and joined the two sticks and poured out His Spirit at Pentecost. Then He grafted in the Gentiles to the Covenant He made with Israel. Now all Jews who reject His covenant are cut off just like those who refused circumcision in the OT.

But only God’s children, the faithful within Israel, enjoyed the covenant blessings. And what does God say to the rest of the people? Does He say, 'You are no longer my natural children'? No! Instead He says, 'Turn back, O backsliding children; I will heal your backslidings' (Jer. 3:22, my translation). The covenant promise still stands.

Yes, He calls them to repent. Exactly as He does now with the Gospel. And that call to repentence goes out to all sinners, Jew and Gentile alike. Neither has any special promises beyond forgiveness of sins in Christ Jesus.

As basic as this is, later Church interpreters went beyond the meaning of the Word. First they said, 'you see, it is not all who are descended from Israel who are Israel. It is the true believers who are Israel, and we are the true believers! We are Israel! It is not just believing Jews who are Israel. Everyone who believes is part of Israel too!'
What’s so terrible about saying this? Maybe nothing so far.

You are absolutley correct, there is nothing terrible in that at all, for it is the Gospel Truth. As it is written: we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. (Gal 4:28). The Bible is explictly and perfectly clear on this point. There is only ONE covenant people of God. And the OT Jews aint it.

But the next step was simply disastrous: If the Church is spiritual Israel, the new Israel, then there is no need for natural Israel, the old Israel anymore. 'Le them rot for all we care! They’ve lost the blessing forever. They crucified the Messiah. They blew their opportunity. In fact, they still don’t believe their own scriptures. They are no longer the covenant people. We are!'

Granted, sinful men have made such errors, but their errors do not contravene the truth of the Holy Bible! The Gospel Truth is that there is absolutely "no need" for carnal Israel any more than there is a "need' for bloody sacrifices or a physical temple made with sticks and stones. All those things were types and shadows that are now fulfilled in Christ. That is why God destroyed the Temple and scattered the Jews, to prove that He was finished with that whole system. The Old Covenant is gone, the New is here to stay. Indeed, to bring in the New Covenant was the purpose of the Old.

It would not have been a problem if Gentile Christians had simply said: 'God has expanded the borders of Israel! Now we are included among the covenant people since we are the spiritual seed of Abraham. And we look forward to the day when the Lord will restore the physical seed of Abraham too! The Old Testament ‘Church’ consisted of Israel alone, but the New Testament ‘Church’ consists of Israel and us. Together we are the new Israel!' Many devout Christians have held to this belief- and there is much truth to it- without for a moment thinking that God’s promises to the natural children were ever in doubt.
Now that paragraph almost got it right! The only problem is that there were NEVER any promises given to the children of the flesh. The "promise" was the promise of the Gospel, and it was given only to the children of promise, which are defined as Christians, whether Jewish or not.

But for many Christians, the notion that the church was the new Israel meant that God had forever discarded His children after the flesh.

God never had any "children after the flesh" except Christ. He was the "only begotton Son of God."

A person is "born of God" if and only if they BELIEVE in Christ, as it is written:
KJV 1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.At every turn, and in every way, the doctrine of Carnal Israelitism contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture and the spirit of the Gospel.

Paul knew how important it was for the Gentile believers to understand the place of Israel. That’s why he devoted so much space- three whole chapters of his most in depth epistle- to the subject of Israel’s divine call. Many believers say, 'Yes, it’s true. Paul talked a lot about Israel in Romans 9-11, but he was talking about spiritual Israel. Remember what he said: ‘not all who are descended from Israel are Israel’ (Rom. 9:6). When Paul said that ‘all Israel will be saved’ (Rom. 22:26) he really didn’t mean all Israel.'
Well, why don’t we let Paul speak for himself? Let’s allow Paul to interpret Paul. When he said 'Israel' in Romans 9-11, did he mean natural children or God’s children?

Romans 9:1-5- Paul had 'great sorrow and unceasing anguish' in his heart for Israel. Which 'Israel' did he mean? The natural children! But someone may object, 'That was before he said that ‘not all Israel who are descended from Israel are Israel.’ What about after that verse? Didn’t he change the meaning of Israel?' Let’s read all the remaining references to 'Israel' (and 'Israelite') in Romans 9-11. The truth will set us free!

Romans 9:27- 'Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: ‘Though the number of Israelites be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.’' Which 'Israel/Israelites' did Paul mean? The natural children!

Yes, the "natural children" that were the believing REMNANT who became saved along with Paul in the first century. They were the part of True Israel that was a subset of "natural Israel."

Romans 9:31- 'But Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children!

Exactly. The "natural children" that rejected Christ which proves that they were NOT in a faithful relationship with YHVH which means they were CUT OFF from the covenant people, no different than the Gentiles.

Romans 10:1- 'Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.' Which 'Israelites' did Paul mean? The natural children!

Exactly correct. He was again talking about carnal children of Abraham whom he loved as true ethnic brothers. But that does not mean that he thought those unbelievers were still "God's People!" On the contrary, how could he have thought that if he was so concerned about their SALVATION that he was will to be accursed from Christ? Obviously, he knew that they were in deep doo doo with God, just like all the Gentile sinners.

Romans 10:16- 'But not all the Israelites accepted the good news…' Which 'Israelites' did Paul mean here? The natural children!

And which "Israelites"accepted it? The first CHRISTIANS = True Israel = THe Israel of God who actually BELIEVED GOD when He came to them in the person of the Messiah. The carnal unbelievers were no different from unbelieving Gentiles.

Romans 10:19-21- 'Again I ask: Did Israel not understand?... Concerning Israel He says, ‘All day long I have held out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children!
This is getting tedius. It adds nothing to our understanding of the fundamental issue. Why doesn't Dr. Brown deal with the real issues? Israel blossomed into the Church. That is obvious. The unbelieving branches were broken off. THat is obvious. There is no promise for unbeleivers, whether Jew or Gentile. That too is obvious.

Well ... I've gone over the 20,000 character limit, so I'll continue in another post.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-23-2008, 04:54 PM

Romans 11:1-2- 'I ask then: Did God reject His people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew…' Which 'Israelites' did Paul mean? The natural children! The literal descendants! Paul was one of them. That was his whole point. He continues this though in the rest of the verse.
And what was Paul proving, if not that the Jews were not cut off from the possibility of salvation in Christ? That's why he used himself as an example. He was saying "See, look at me! I'm a Jew and God saved me in Christ. This proves that our crimes against Christ (remember I persectuted the Church) have not caused us to be cast away forever." It has NOTHING to do with the idea that there is a "promise" for carnal Israel.

Romans 11:2- '… Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah- how he appealed to God against Israel.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children! It was among them that God had preserved a remnant (Rom. 11:3-5).
Exactly correct! And Paul himself was part of that first century remnant that was saved in Christ. The salvation of the remnant of Israel began at Pentecost when 3000 were saved. Then many thousands more. The REMNANT was believing Israel. The rest were hardened until the final judgment in 70 AD when God used the Romans to wipe out the city and the sanctuary.

Romans 11:7- 'What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children! Only the elect, God’s children, those whom He foreknew, obtained righteousness, the others, the rest of the natural children, were hardened.

Romans 11:11- 'Again I ask: Did they [the natural children] stumble so as to fall? Not at all [Lat the Church repeat these words out loud: Israel did not stumble beyond recovery.] Rather, because of their transgression [the transgression of the natural children], salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.' Which 'Israel' did Paul mean? The natural children! And look at verse 13: 'I am talking to you Gentiles…' Paul is talking to the Gentile believers about Israel. He is not telling Gentile believers that they are Israel. And now we get to the heart of it all…

That is correct. The natural children did not stumble beyond the possibility of recovery IN CHRIST, as it is written:
Romans 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Any member of carnal Israel can be grafted into the Olive Tree (Church) by simple faith in Christ. That is what Paul was teaching. It has nothing to do with any "special promises" of a future ethnic national revival.

Richard

eliyahu

01-27-2008, 08:41 AM

Granted, sinful men have made such errors, but their errors do not contravene the truth of the Holy Bible! The Gospel Truth is that there is absolutely "no need" for carnal Israel any more than there is a "need' for bloody sacrifices or a physical temple made with sticks and stones. All those things were types and shadows that are now fulfilled in Christ. That is why God destroyed the Temple and scattered the Jews, to prove that He was finished with that whole system. The Old Covenant is gone, the New is here to stay. Indeed, to bring in the New Covenant was the purpose of the Old.

Good morning Richard.
Why do you believe that the reason God destroyed the temple, etc. was to "prove that He was finished with that sytem?" By that logic, wouldn't He have done such to the Catholic church? Or how about the many other "Christian" organizations and systems of religion which were apostotate at best? I do believe that He is finished with the temple sacrifices dealing with atonement. But to argue that the absolute sole purpose for all of those old covenant things was as a forshadowing type of Christ is a far stretch!
And if there is "no need" for the temple any longer (which there isn't) as you had put it, than the fact is there is plenty of capitol for sinful men to work with and say that there is "no need" for the Jewish people who are enemies of God anyhow! You can see where that reasoning goes and has gone in history.

The only problem is that there were NEVER any promises given to the children of the flesh. The "promise" was the promise of the Gospel, and it was given only to the children of promise, which are defined as Christians, whether Jewish or not.
There were no Christians or Gentile members of any covenant before the resurrection. However, that is not to say that righteous Gentiles of faith who chose not to be converted to Judaism or never heard of that were not "saved" between Sinai and the resurrection. They retrocatively and unknowingly inherited the promise to Abraham and went to heaven as recipients of Christ's atonement.

Why do you think that the "gospel is first to the Jew and then to the Gentile" after that. Why is that the pattern which Paul took when preaching, going to the local Jews first?

Why did Peter say "you are the sons of the prophets; and you are (present tense) included in the covenant which God made with our fathers when He said to Abraham, 'By your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed.' So it is to you first that God has sent His servant whom He has raised up, so that He might bless you (fulfilling the promise to Abraham and his seed, which these Jews filled with "evil ways" are here being counted as recipients of) by turning each of you from your evil ways. (addressing those whome "are included" in the covenant with Abraham)" Acts 3:25-26.

Exactly correct. He was again talking about carnal children of Abraham whom he loved as true ethnic brothers. But that does not mean that he thought those unbelievers were still "God's People!" On the contrary, how could he have thought that if he was so concerned about their SALVATION that he was will to be accursed from Christ? Obviously, he knew that they were in deep doo doo with God, just like all the Gentile sinners.

This was in reference to Romans 9:1-5. "I wish that I could be accursed and seperate from Christ for the sake of my kinsmen according to the flesh... to whom belong the adoption as sons... the covenants... the promises... the Christ according to the flesh."
So, according to Paul, they are "sons" "according to the flesh." That makes them "God's people," being His "sons" "according to the flesh." Also, "theirs are the covenants." That includes the new covenant which is a covenant. Paul also says that his unbelieving Jewish kinsmen are the owners of the "romises." That chiefly includes the original promise to Abraham as well as the land promises (not to discuss the modern state of Israel now please).

Why did Paul say all this? It was the Spirit inspiring him to say this. It was not his human sentiment toward his own familiar ethnic family. We ought to have that same grief toward unbelieving Jews specifically if we have a heart like God's and an understanding of why God has chosen the Jewish people.

Richard Amiel McGough

01-27-2008, 10:20 AM

Good morning Richard.
Good morning Eliyahu,

It is good to be exploring these important questions with you.

Why do you believe that the reason God destroyed the temple, etc. was to "prove that He was finished with that sytem?" By that logic, wouldn't He have done such to the Catholic church? Or how about the many other "Christian" organizations and systems of religion which were apostotate at best?

It seems you have missed my point entirely. God did not end the Old Covenant because some Jews were apostate! God had planned from the beginning to end that system because it was designed only to be the "midwife" to bring forth Christ and and New Covenant.

I do believe that He is finished with the temple sacrifices dealing with atonement. But to argue that the absolute sole purpose for all of those old covenant things was as a forshadowing type of Christ is a far stretch!

It doesn't seem like a stretch at all to me because everything - absolutely everything - is summed up in Christ. And Christ Himself made it clear that God is not interested in people worshipping in Temples anyway. Remember the true purposes of God are spiritual in nature:
John 4:19-24 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in [the Temple in] Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at [the Temple in] Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Christ is the living Temple of God who "tabernacled amongst us."

And if there is "no need" for the temple any longer (which there isn't) as you had put it, than the fact is there is plenty of capitol for sinful men to work with and say that there is "no need" for the Jewish people who are enemies of God anyhow! You can see where that reasoning goes and has gone in history.

And the same sinful men could pervert any other truth from the Bible. I don't see how such perversion is relevant to a serious discussion of the things that God has taught in His Holy Word.

Why do you think that the "gospel is first to the Jew and then to the Gentile" after that. Why is that the pattern which Paul took when preaching, going to the local Jews first?

I don't think it "is" first to the Jews. I think it "was" first to the Jews, and that was because God created the Jews to bring for the Christ. They were the "priestly nation" for the whole world while the first covenant was in power. Now the church plays that role.

Why did Peter say "you are the sons of the prophets; and you are (present tense) included in the covenant which God made with our fathers when He said to Abraham, 'By your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed.' So it is to you first that God has sent His servant whom He has raised up, so that He might bless you (fulfilling the promise to Abraham and his seed, which these Jews filled with "evil ways" are here being counted as recipients of) by turning each of you from your evil ways. (addressing those whome "are included" in the covenant with Abraham)" Acts 3:25-26.
Why did Peter say "you are (present tense in the first century) sons of the prophets?" The answer is simple. Because it was true! But I don't see how that relates to the discussion at hand. No one has been denying that those Jews were the "sons of the prophets."

This was in reference to Romans 9:1-5. "I wish that I could be accursed and seperate from Christ for the sake of my kinsmen according to the flesh... to whom belong the adoption as sons... the covenants... the promises... the Christ according to the flesh."
So, according to Paul, they are "sons" "according to the flesh." That makes them "God's people," being His "sons" "according to the flesh." Also, "theirs are the covenants." That includes the new covenant which is a covenant. Paul also says that his unbelieving Jewish kinsmen are the owners of the "romises." That chiefly includes the original promise to Abraham as well as the land promises (not to discuss the modern state of Israel now please).

I think you made a very big mistake here. The phrase "according to the flesh" modifies "kinsmen" not "sons". And besides that, the idea implied by the phrase "sons according to the flesh" directly contradicts the text that immediately follows in context:
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. I do not see how anyone could persist in the claim that the "sons of the flesh" are "God's People" when God Himself directly contradicts that idea with the most explicit language possible. And its not only in this passage. John the Baptist made it clear that being Abraham's seed meant zilch when it comes to their standing before God, and Christ said "I know ye are Abraham's seed" immediately before declaring them to be the sons of the devil. The doctrine of carnal Israel as "God's people" is false.

Why did Paul say all this? It was the Spirit inspiring him to say this.
Exactly my point. Romans 9:8 is a revelation from God Almighty that the "children of the flesh" are not the "children of God."

It was not his human sentiment toward his own familiar ethnic family. We ought to have that same grief toward unbelieving Jews specifically if we have a heart like God's and an understanding of why God has chosen the Jewish people.
It is not correct to say that God "has chosen" (present tense) the Jews for anything. The Biblical teaching is that God "had chosen" Abraham and his descenants for His Gospel purpose. They fulfilled that purpose when the believing remnant of Israel fulfilled the prophecies and became the Christian Church into which Gentiles later were grafted. There are no promises and there is no calling for those who rejected the New Covenant that God made with both houses of Israel. They are NOT the children of God. They have no covenant to define them as "His people" because they rejected the New Covenant, and the Old Covenant passed away when God made the New Covenant with the nation of Israel.

Richard

eliyahu

01-27-2008, 01:26 PM

I don't think it "is" first to the Jews. I think it "was" first to the Jews, and that was because God created the Jews to bring for the Christ. They were the "priestly nation" for the whole world while the first covenant was in power. Now the church plays that role.

My actual question was "Why did Paul always go to the local Jews to preach the gospel first before speaking to any local Gentiles?" This coincides with "to the Jew first."

Why did Peter say "you are (present tense in the first century) sons of the prophets?" The answer is simple. Because it was true! But I don't see how that relates to the discussion at hand. No one has been denying that those Jews were the "sons of the prophets."
That was not a full answer to the question. We all agree that the Jews are the sons of the prophets I was interested in the rest of the statement. I said
"Why did Peter say "you are the sons of the prophets; and you are (present tense) included in the covenant which God made with our fathers when He said to Abraham, 'By your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed.' So it is to you first that God has sent His servant whom He has raised up, so that He might bless you (fulfilling the promise to Abraham and his seed, which these Jews filled with "evil ways" are here being counted as recipients of) by turning each of you from your evil ways. (addressing those whome "are included" in the covenant with Abraham)" Acts 3:25-26.
Peter addresses as of yet unbelieving Jews in the above statements. He said that part of God blessing them with Abraham's blessing was to send the gospel to them. Them, not the believers only, all of them. The blessing to Abraham was considered still upon the unbelieving Jews as well as the believing ones.

I think you made a very big mistake here. The phrase "according to the flesh" modifies "kinsmen" not "sons". And besides that, the idea implied by the phrase "sons according to the flesh" directly contradicts the text that immediately follows in context:
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.
"According to the flesh" does modify "kinsmen." Those unbelieving kinsmen are then called "sons."

Rose

01-27-2008, 03:40 PM

That was not a full answer to the question. We all agree that the Jews are the sons of the prophets I was interested in the rest of the statement. I said
"Why did Peter say "you are the sons of the prophets; and you are (present tense) included in the covenant which God made with our fathers when He said to Abraham, 'By your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed.' So it is to you first that God has sent His servant whom He has raised up, so that He might bless you (fulfilling the promise to Abraham and his seed, which these Jews filled with "evil ways" are here being counted as recipients of) by turning each of you from your evil ways. (addressing those whom "are included" in the covenant with Abraham)" Acts 3:25-26.
Peter addresses as of yet unbelieving Jews in the above statements. He said that part of God blessing them with Abraham's blessing was to send the gospel to them. Them, not the believers only, all of them. The blessing to Abraham was considered still upon the unbelieving Jews as well as the believing ones.

They (those Jews that Peter was talking to) were given the blessing of being the first to receive the Gospel (the Gospel was freely given to all), but many did not receive what was given. The blessing cannot be still upon those who did not receive what was given. They rejected it!

What other blessing could there possibly be besides eternal life through Jesus Christ! That is what was meant by "by your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed". Through the "chosen vessels of the Jews" the Messiah came forth with the gift of salvation for all who believe, and receive. It was first given to the Jew, and then to the whole world.

Rose

eliyahu

01-27-2008, 04:33 PM

My effort it to show that the Jewish people are still God's chosen people, believers or not. Peter was inspired by the Spirit (Acts 3:25-26) to tell the yet unbelieving Jews that because of God's promises to their father Abraham to bless his offspring, God sent the gospel to the Jews first. This means that they are still chosen and beloved by God, because of promises to the fathers, Rom. 11:28. This is supposed to be the pattern today as it was in Paul's ministry. Bring the gospel to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles.

And Rose, as to your very last statement... Yes it was to the Jews first and then to the whole world. But the idea of "to the Jew first" in Romans is what I am getting at. It is their Messiah whom God demands their obedience to and now from all people. In fact, "Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy
they also may obtain mercy." Romans 11:31
And a blessing that there could possibly be besides Jesus Christ is the promised land being given to the Jews again in the future and fully accomplished by an act of God before sight of the nations. This is another connected topic but I must digress. The complete fulfillment of the promise is going to come in the millenium. It will be the Jewish people who obviously will have survived the final days of this age and have repented and turned to Jesus as their Messiah. After His return, He will be received by them and rule them from Jerusalem, in true peace and prosperity. They will be a nation of priests to the other nations for the duration of the millenium. The millenium may not be literally a thousand years but there are sufficient references to it in the old testament to support it aside from Revelation (which is a major problem for preterism).

basilfo

01-27-2008, 08:56 PM

My effort it to show that the Jewish people are still God's chosen people, believers or not. Peter was inspired by the Spirit (Acts 3:25-26) to tell the yet unbelieving Jews that because of God's promises to their father Abraham to bless his offspring, God sent the gospel to the Jews first.

Eliyahu,
That was true in the very first days that the apostles began preaching the Gospel. The stayed in Jerusalem (to the Jew first), then brought the Gospel to the Gentiles.

This means that they are still chosen and beloved by God, because of promises to the fathers, Rom. 11:28. This is supposed to be the pattern today as it was in Paul's ministry. Bring the gospel to the Jews first, then to the Gentiles.[/quote]

On what basis do you make that statement? What is the practical application today for 'to the Jew first, then to the Gentiles'? Since Paul said the Gospel was brought to the whole world and to every creature under heaven in his time, how does one after the first century 'bring the Gospel to the Jew first'?? Please explain.

What 'Jewish people'? Do you mean anyone living within the national boundries of Israel today? What % of their ancestry has to come from one of the 12 tribes to be classified as Jewish? Do Gentiles who have converted to and practice Judaism count? And of course, what covenant of God are these 'chosen people' under?

Peace to you,
Dave

basilfo

01-27-2008, 09:11 PM

The complete fulfillment of the promise is going to come in the millenium. It will be the Jewish people who obviously will have survived the final days of this age and have repented and turned to Jesus as their Messiah.

What about the Jewish people who don't survive 'the final days'? Will they get a chance to be saved anytime your timeline? That sounds like only a tiny fraction will receive 'the blessing promised to the chosen people' - only those who are alive AFTER His return. What's that, .001% of all 'Jews' through the ages?

After His return, He will be received by them and rule them from Jerusalem, in true peace and prosperity. They will be a nation of priests to the other nations for the duration of the millenium. The millenium may not be literally a thousand years but there are sufficient references to it in the old testament to support it aside from Revelation (which is a major problem for preterism).

Do any Gentiles get a chance to be saved AFTER He returns in your scenario? I don't believe Scripture supports the literal earthly reign from a physical location, but in your scenario, is receiving Him after He is physically in view a matter of faith, as we are taught in Scripture? It sounds like a no brainer by that time, so isn't that salvation by a completely different mode?

I'm sorry to pepper these questions at you Eliyahu, but I mainly want to understand your view and how it is supported by Scripture. Please accept my questions in Christian love and in the spirit of searching the Scriptures to see if it is so.

Peace to you,
Dave

basilfo

01-27-2008, 10:10 PM

The millenium may not be literally a thousand years but there are sufficient references to it in the old testament to support it aside from Revelation (which is a major problem for preterism).

What problem is that? Could you explain what you mean?
Thanks.

Trumpet

01-28-2008, 02:49 AM

Hello everyone,

There is something going on here that very few realize, and it is the called the Controversy of Zion. Isaiah speaks of this in Chapter 34.

Now for some of you that lean towards preterism, this is going to be hard for you, but bear with me please, and read what I have to say before you judge me.

First, I’ll give you somewhat of a foundation.

In Leviticus 26:39-43 God says that if His people 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) Before those verses, in Lev 26: 14-39, God tells what will happen to His people if they don’t harken unto Him. One of the biggest judgments in this section is that God will scatter them to their enemies, and there they will perish.

When Jeremiah was prophesying about the fall of Judah and Jerusalem to the Babylonians, Jer. 19, he took an earthen bottle to the valley of Hinnom, with the elders of the people, and pronounced judgment on that place. Then he broke the bottle as a symbol of the city never being able to be put together again.

The people did NOT repent, and the Babylonians destroyed the city and Solomon’s Temple. BUT……The Jews that were repentant were permitted to come back to that place, and as we know, after more than 70 years, God allowed them to rebuild through Nehemiah, Ezra, Zerrubabel, and Haggai. So this was a partial fulfillment of Lev 26 and Jer. 19, but it was partial in that it was not destroyed forever.

In Jeremiah24, God showed Jeremiah the good and bad figs. The good figs had a heart to know God; vs.7; and the bad figs were very evil, and were destined for famine, pestilence, the sword, and consummation from the land that God had given to their fathers. Vs.10 The returnees of Judah from Babylon were the good figs in this instance, and they were allowed back to the promised land. The bad figs were killed or remained in Babylon. The biggest fault in the heart of the bad figs was their refusal to accept God’s punishment, and this was shown when, in ch.28, Hannaniah the prophet refused the wooden yoke that God wanted to impose on them, and broke it in refusal, so Jeremiah said they would then have an iron yoke. An iron yoke was given when they refused to follow the punishment of the Lord, and they would be banished from the land. A wooden yoke was given when they would accept the Lord’s punishment, and often they would be allowed to remain in their land and just have to pay tribute.

Now here is an instance of a prophecy being multiple.

When Jesus was crucified, again there were good and bad figs. ( Judeans) The good figs accepted Jesus as Messiah, and the bad figs did not. Everyone was given the chance to accept. Many of the bad figs were of the type that wanted a powerful Messiah that would come and claim the Kingdom, and rid Judea of the Romans. This same spirit of not harkening to God was again manifested in many of the religious leaders, and others like Judas. The judgment turned out to be the same, except this time, God used the Romans to carry it out. Jerusalem and Judea was to be devastated once again! And God gave 40 years of mercy to give the bad figs time to repent. They did not. So the good figs were warned by prophecy to leave Jerusalem, and the bad figs were almost totally annihilated. This process took 7 years, from the time the war broke out in AD 66 through the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, all the way to the end when the Siccori killed and committed suicide at Masada in AD73. The end of this devastation of the bad figs took place in 135 AD at the Bar Kokba revolt. These bad figs were so bad, that the Romans banned them from Jerusalem forever. This was God’s iron yoke of permanent exile, which was performed in accordance to Leviticus as stated above.

Now, please take note: The banishment from Jerusalem also included Jeremiah’s bottle prophecy, where the city was to be totally destroyed, never to be rebuilt again. This has not yet been completely fulfilled.

We, as Christians always try to relate the things of God along the lines of salvation. But I don’t believe that God is so narrow. He makes promises throughout time, and He fulfills them….Always. This issue of the Holy Land is an issue concerning the birthright passed down through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. There has been a fight ever since as to who has legal claim to this birthright. This birthright was still in the hands of the northern tribe of Joseph when the northern tribes were dispersed. Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, and He was in the line of Kingship, not birthright. He is Lord, but until the issue of birthright is settled, there can be no resurrection, because full resurrection is when the believer enters the Promised Land, which is the 'rest', or 'the resurrected body'. This is our inheritance….This is our 'Promised Land' But there are claims being made at present over who owns the 'Promised Land'.

The Jews during the Babylonian destruction thought that they were special in the eyes of God, and He would help them defeat the Babylonians and keep the Promised Land, in spite of their non-repentance. These were bad figs.

The Jews of the first century thought that they had God’s blessing, and they killed the one who was proclaimed 'King'. Just like in Jesus’ parables about the son of the land owner being killed by the hired servants. They said, 'Lets kill him, and take the land for ourselves!' This was open rebellion. They claimed to have right to the land without the King. These were bad figs, and they suffered the consequences. They were expelled from the land, and Jerusalem was destroyed.

But…Jerusalem was built again. So Jeremiah’s prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. God said that Jerusalem would be destroyed like that clay bottle, never to be put together again. And once again, the descendants of Judah, along with the descendants of Esau have laid claim to that place without the order of God. Only after the Babylonian captivity were the Jews allowed to return by God’s authorization.

The spirit of the Jews that have returned to the Holy Land in the 20th century, is the same spirit that was in the people of the Bar Kokba revolt. In fact, the mercenaries that armed themselves to retake the land of Israel even laid claim to Bar Kokba as a namesake and a hero for them. They also heroicized the Siccari that committed suicide at Masada. These were the people in the 1920’s to 1948 that moved back to the land without God’s blessing OR authorization. I’m sure you’ve heard of them. Menachim Begin, Ariel Sharon, Vladimir Jabotinski, Yitshak Shamir, David Ben-Gurion, and Yitzak Rabin, to name a few. These men came back to the land, and took it back by terrorism. They are all murderers. This is not God’s way of doing things. These people are Bad Figs. They even named the country 'Israel', which is a satanic way of laying claim to the birthright that doesn’t belong to them. They came mostly from the tribe of Judah, and in truth should have claimed that name for the country, rather than the false name of Israel. Israel is the name given by God to those that have had a change of heart. These people have never had a change of heart towards God.

I did a post that describes the ancestry of the Ashkenaz Jews. #41 in 'Has God forsaken His People?' Their ancestors are the same as the list of people in Ezekiel 38 and 39. In actuality, the northern invasion to the land of unwalled villages describes the Ashkenaz return to Israel very well. It was a peaceful land in the early 20th century, and the returning Jews have since armed themselves to the teeth. The way that futurists have described these passages makes this to be an army, but the meaning fits the Jewish settlers very well. They are Gog and Magog. They have come up over the whole land to take a spoil. And the spoil is something that they don’t have a God-given right to…That is the LAND. They have usurped the land.

God doesn’t leave loose ends. He said that Jerusalem would be broken, never to be repaired. He prophesied in Isaiah 34:8, Malachi1:1-4, the Book of Obadiah, and other places about what is coming.

Moses said in Deut 29:23-27 that if Israel violated the covenant, (remember the Old was upgraded to the New, and they wouldn’t accept it, and still don’t) and became lawless, that He would judge them like He judged Sodom and Gommorah.

We are at a time in history that the enemies of the Jews are about to become nuclear. And they have clearly stated their purposes against Israel and anyone else that helps them. We as Americans have been blinded by the Zionist takeover of the Holy land as being peaceful. It was not peaceful. It was not God ordained. We are suffering repercussions of aiding this illegal land grab, and I fear for the lives of many Americans in the days ahead. The only way for this to end peacefully is for the Jews to claim Jesus as Savior; but these are bad figs....They don't act like good figs.

When this 'Controversy of Zion' is finished, then all the disputed claims made to the birthright stolen by Jacob will be finished. Then we will be in position for the next stage . The Passover age was upgraded at Pentecost. The Pentecost age is about to be upgraded to Tabernacles. But first Elijah must come. Elijah’s call is one of repentance. It’s time to repent! This is all about God’s process of finding out who will be worthy of being like the Gideons. God uses the world as a stage and His Word and promises as legal arguments on the stage of His Court. It’s time to come out of our sleep, and awake from our stupor.

God Bless Don:yo:

joel

01-28-2008, 05:48 AM

That is an interesting perspective, Don.

Whatever lies in the future concerning these matters seems to be in abeyance until one thing; "...that blindness is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles come in." Romans 11:25.

That process is still occurring. There is no way that we can know, as it is occurring, that it is reaching a fulfillment. The fulness is a "pleroma". It is that which fills up.

Some say that the 1948 recognition is a sign post. Some see as you do that the Arab world is moving toward an annhilation of Israel, whether nuclear or otherwise.

Paul's advice, following his discussion of chapters 9-11 of Romans, is;
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptabe unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be ye not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, wil of God.

We are members of His body.

And as such, we will "all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Romans 11:10.

There is so much that is unclear that lies ahead. There are many different viewpoints that tend to disputes between us. We certainly have experienced some recently, and continue to do so.

Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and he closed his Romans letter with;
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the word began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

May we prove to be beneficial to each other in building each other up.

Joel

Trumpet

01-28-2008, 08:10 AM

I agree with you Joel, on the necessity of we Christians to wholeheartedly move forward in our faith. But a large part of our faith is not to be fooled, and to study the scriptures because the truth lies in them. I only mention these things to be coming against heresy and lies that have blinded our brothers and sisters. I have no arguements with the persons of anyone. Indeed, I was on the other side of this issue until God opened my eyes to these things. I just pray that others will search diligently without a covering of preconceived ideas. I really believe that we are looking at the time described in 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, and the good and bad figs of the whole world are going to be separated because of it.

God bless you Joel. My first inquiry on this forum had to do with why Jesus didn't seem to care about those heathen around Him in that day that would be perrishing because they had no chance of being part of the chosen people. I dilligently searched the scriptures and your persistence on this forum with your "different" ideas has helped me greatly in persistence with God for an answer to this, -and He gave answers to me. And it helped me in realizing that the common thought of the main stream, of the way God is, "Isn't necessarily totally correct", and we need to search the scriptures "with" the aid of the Holy Spirit, at the same time that we are aligning our lives up to the way of God.

God Bless Don

Richard Amiel McGough

01-28-2008, 10:05 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-28-2008, 10:21 AM

Why did Peter say "you are (present tense in the first century) sons of the prophets?" The answer is simple. Because it was true! But I don't see how that relates to the discussion at hand. No one has been denying that those Jews were the "sons of the prophets."

That was not a full answer to the question. We all agree that the Jews are the sons of the prophets I was interested in the rest of the statement. I said

"Why did Peter say "you are the sons of the prophets; and you are (present tense) included in the covenant which God made with our fathers when He said to Abraham, 'By your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed.' So it is to you first that God has sent His servant whom He has raised up, so that He might bless you (fulfilling the promise to Abraham and his seed, which these Jews filled with "evil ways" are here being counted as recipients of) by turning each of you from your evil ways. (addressing those whome "are included" in the covenant with Abraham)" Acts 3:25-26.

Peter addresses as of yet unbelieving Jews in the above statements. He said that part of God blessing them with Abraham's blessing was to send the gospel to them. Them, not the believers only, all of them. The blessing to Abraham was considered still upon the unbelieving Jews as well as the believing ones.

Peter was talking about those Jews being included in the Old Covenant. He most certainly was NOT saying that they had any promises from God as unbelievers. The Bible is perfectly clear and explicit on this point. No one is automatically included in the New Covenant because of carnal heritage. If you don't believe you are not included. Indeed, under the New Covenant, you are not even counted as "Abraham's seed" if you do not believe, and if you do believe, you are counted as "Abraham's seed" regardless of your carnal heritage.

I see nothing in Acts 3:25-26 to support the idea that unbelieving carnal sons of Abraham have any promises from God at all, except that of the New Covenant, of course.

Richard

Trumpet

01-28-2008, 07:08 PM

Hi Richard,

My question is this: "in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease." Was this AD 70?

Don

Richard Amiel McGough

01-28-2008, 08:09 PM

Hi Richard,

My question is this: "in the midst of the week, he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease." Was this AD 70?

Don

Good question! I believe the most likely answer is that it refers to the final sacrifice which occurred somewhere between 30-33 AD when Christ was crucified. The text says that He would be cut off AFTER the 69th week, which means during the 70th week since everything had to be finished by the end of the 70th week.

How do you understand that verse?

Richard

eliyahu

01-28-2008, 09:14 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-28-2008, 09:33 PM

Hi Richard.:)

I don't think that you answered my question.

"Why did Peter say "... you are (present tense) included in the covenant which God made with our fathers when He said to Abraham, 'By your seed will all the nations of the earth be blessed.' So it is to you first that God has sent His servant whom He has raised up, so that He might bless you (fulfilling the promise to Abraham and his seed, which these Jews filled with "evil ways" are here being counted as recipients of) by turning each of you from your evil ways. (addressing those whome "are included" in the covenant with Abraham)" Acts 3:25-26.

Peter addresses unbelieving Jews (who, as far as anyone knows, remained unbelievers) in the above statements. He said that part of God blessing them with Abraham's blessing was to send the gospel to them. Them, not the believers only, all of them. The blessing to Abraham was considered by Peter to be still upon the unbelieving Jews, as well as the believing ones, right here in Acts 3:25-26.

My point is that Peter is addressing unbelieving Jews with the gospel. He said that he had to preach it to them because of God's promise to Abraham to bless his offspring. That means that the promises are still upon unbelieving Jews! That is what Acts 2:25-26 says.
Hey there my friend,

It's good to be digging deep into God's Word with you. :thumb:

I agree completely that the promise of the Gospel is "still upon the unbelieving Jews" just as it is upon all humanity.

Are you saying that there were some other "special promises" just for the Jews (both believing and unbelieving) that are not included in the Gospel? If so, please tell me what they are, and explain how that idea could fit with the explicit declaration that the promises were only for the "children of promise" who are defined as believers and who are the "seed of Abraham and heirs according to promise."

Thanks!

Richard

eliyahu

01-29-2008, 06:14 AM

Brother Les

01-29-2008, 07:00 AM

eliyahu posted
The blessing of Abraham is not on "all humanity." It is on the Jews and believing Gentiles. It is not resting upon unbelieving Gentiles. If it is, as you said "still upon the Jews" than your preterism has a big foundational problem. Gentiles were never promised Abraham's blessing. Abraham and his seed were promised that through the seed of Abraham all the nations would be blessed. The promise was made to Abraham and his seed, not to the Gentiles (who were to be blessed ass a result of the promise to Abraham and his seed).
Thanks for keeping up with me in this

eliyahu,
You may not have noticed this, but when The Bible uses the term Gentiles..Goyem...it is speaking about some of Abrahams direct blood desendents through Jacob ...ie...'Israel', are 'called' in some verses Gentiles...Goyem...

Lexicon Results for gowy (Strong's H1471)
Hebrew for H1471 גוי Transliteration
gowy
Pronunciation

go'·ē (Key)

Part of Speech
masculine noun
proper masculine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

apparently from the same root as H1465

TWOT Reference
326e

Outline of Biblical Usage n m
1) nation, people

a) nation, people

1) usually of non-Hebrew people

2) of descendants of Abraham

3) of Israel

b) of swarm of locusts, other animals (fig.)

n pr m
c) Goyim? = "nations"

The context of the verses dictate 'if' such 'Gentiles' are 'blood' sons of Abraham and Jacob ('Israel').

What does this show...some of 'The Natural' branches were pulled from 'The Tree' and 'and the Natural Branches 'became wild' (Samaria being dispersed to the barbarians...ie..divorced from God) But later 'the Wild Branches were RE-Graffted back into The Tree. The 'Nations' of The Disporia (Samaria) returning to God byway of The New Covenant. Re-marrying God as Chaste Brides... 'All Judah' is not 'all Israel'....but 'all Israel' (true Israel) are sons of Abraham

Brother Les

Rose

01-29-2008, 08:07 AM

The blessing of Abraham is not on "all humanity." It is on the Jews and believing Gentiles. It is not resting upon unbelieving Gentiles. If it is, as you said "still upon the Jews" than your preterism has a big foundational problem. Gentiles were never promised Abraham's blessing. Abraham and his seed were promised that through the seed of Abraham all the nations would be blessed. The promise was made to Abraham and his seed, not to the Gentiles (who were to be blessed ass a result of the promise to Abraham and his seed).

Hi Eliyahu :yo:

I have a couple questions.

First, what blessings are you meaning?

And if the "blessing of Abraham" is still on the unbelieving Jews, what percentage of Jewishness does one have to be to receive the blessing? Also what blessings do the believing Gentiles receive?

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

01-29-2008, 09:23 AM

Good Morning Richard.

Let me put this is the NASB. "It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.' For you first, God raised up His servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways." Acts 3:25-26.

The "covenant" here is the unconditional one made by God with Abraham. The reason God was going to "bless" them was because of the promise to Abraham in Gen 12. Peter called unbelieving Jews (much like unbelieving Jews today) "sons of the covenant... with... Abraham" The NAS puts it "For you first..."

Good morning Eliyahu!

This is exactly how I think a disagreement should be handled. We are digging deeper into a specific verse and really looking closely to see what it says. In the case of the promise of Genesis 12, I understand that promise to to be the promise of the Gospel for two reasons. First, because it coheres with the overall message of the Bible, and second because it is explicitly stated as such 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.

Who is it that are "blessed with Abraham? His carnal offspring? No! The Bible is as explicit as human language will allow when it declares that ONLY BELIEVERS are "blessed with faithful Abraham." This is confirmed in Romans
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Indeed, the whole point of the Bible is that any person - Jew or Gentile - partakes of the "blessings of Abraham" through FAITH. That it the primary message of the Bible. Paul's ENTIRE argument is really based on Genesis 15:6 when Abraham was justified through faith.

The primary problem with your doctrine is that it is carnal - you seem to be saying that God made promises to bless the children of Abraham's flesh merely because they were his physical children. As far as I know, you have not yet dealt with Romans 9:6-8 which explicitly declares that the children of the flesh - which includes unbelieving Jews - are NOT the children of God, and have absolutely no claim to any special promises from God because they are NOT the children of promise.

Peter applied the covenant promises to Abraham and his seed to as of yet unbelieving Jews here didn't he?

Yes, of course. And what was the "promise of Abraham?" It was the promise of the Gospel, as declared explicitly 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.

Peter was preaching to the Jews - both believing and unbelieving - and telling them that they were the children of the first covenant, and that God had fulfilled ALL His promises in Christ, and that if they wanted to receive the promises from God, they must repent and believe. See that? He didnt' say anything like what you are implying. He didn't say "Hey guys! You don't have to believe! You are a Jew and so you get all these great blessings no matter what you do!" He didn't say anything like that. On the contrary, he WARNED THE UNBELIEVING JEWS that they would be DESTROYED if they refused Christ:
Acts 3:19-26 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

When Peter said "Ye are the children of the prophets" he was not saying that they get "special promises" outside of the Gospel! No, no, no! He was pleading with them to recognise who they were and to repent and turn to Christ, without whom they had NOTHING. Nada. Zilch. Zip. There were no promises to the Jews outside of the Gospel.

That was Peter's logic behing the gospel going to the Jews "first" wasn't it?

The fact that they are physically "sons of the covenant with Abraham" qualifies unbelieving Jews, both then, now and forever, as being the subjects of the original blessings to Abraham, according to the logic in these verses. It had nothing to do with their faith or lack of it, since they had not even heard the gospel until Peter preached it to them right then.

No way. "That" logic is entirely strained and inconsistent with many explicit Scriptures, and indeed, it directly contradicts the central core of the Gospel which is that all people, whether Jew or Gentile, enter in to the promises of Abraham through faith and not works, or fleshly heritage.

Thanks for keeping up with me in this :yo:
It is most definitely my pleasure, my friend! I thank you for continuing to dig deep on this point while maintaining such a wonderful spirit of peace. You are blessed!

Richard

joel

01-29-2008, 11:33 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

01-29-2008, 12:27 PM

Richard, you say that "the gospel" is the promise given to Abraham, but, wouldn't it be more precise to say that gospel told Abraham of the promises that he would receive, and that others would receive through him?

Joel
Hi Joel,

I don't quite understand what you are getting at. The Gospel is the message, not the messenger. The messenger is Scripture, and that is why Gal 3:8 says that the Scripture preached the Gospel to Abraham.

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.
The Gospel was the Promise given to Abraham in Genesis chapters 12, 15, and 22. That's why all believers, whether Jew or Gentile, are called "children of the promise" and "Abraham's seed." And that's why all unbelievers, whether Jew or Gentile, are called "children of the flesh" and NOT the children of God.

As far as I can tell, no one has presented any biblical evidence for the idea that the unbelieving Jews have "special promises" based only on their carnal heritage. None. Nada. Zilch. Zip. It's just not in the Bible. On the contrary, every passage in the Bible that touches on this issue seems to teach the opposite, that all the promises are given ONLY to believers through faith. That is the message of the Gospel that was first established when Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15.6.

I just can not understand why any Christian would be so interested in carnal Israel. Could you explain it to me please? It seems to me that God went out of His way to preach the Gospel of Righteousness through Faith from Genesis 15:6 all the way through the rest of the Bible. Could you explain why anyone would think the "Jews" are still in possesion of "special promises" that lie outside the Gospel? What Scriptures are you drawing from?

Thanks buddy!

Richard

joel

01-29-2008, 06:54 PM

The Gospel was the Promise given to Abraham in Genesis chapters 12, 15, and 22.

In Genesis 12, the land was promised, And the extent of his family would as numerous as the sand of the sea.

In Genesis 15, the seed would number as the dust of the earth, and the stars in the heavens.

In Genesis 17, his fatherhood would apply to all the peoples of all of the nations, and that the land would accrue to his seed after thee.

In Genesis 22, the sand and sea numbers were spoken again, and, "thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.

How do we reconcile that with....."The gospel was the promise...."?

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

01-29-2008, 08:05 PM

In Genesis 12, the land was promised, And the extent of his family would as numerous as the sand of the sea.

In Genesis 15, the seed would number as the dust of the earth, and the stars in the heavens.

In Genesis 17, his fatherhood would apply to all the peoples of all of the nations, and that the land would accrue to his seed after thee.

In Genesis 22, the sand and sea numbers were spoken again, and, "thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.

How do we reconcile that with....."The gospel was the promise...."?

Joel

I don't think "reconcile" is the correct word, since it suggests that there is some sort of conflict. This should be clear as we walk through those verses. Here is the promise of Genesis 12:
Genesis 12:1-3 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Ok, let's walk through this. The first promise was to make a "great nation" from Abraham. This was fulfilled in the natural sense in the nation of Israel, and in its ultimate spiritual sense in the Christian church. The second promise was to make his name great, which again was first fulfilled in the first covenant community and then ultimately and eternally in the New Covnenant community (aka the Christian Church). The third promise was to make Abraham a blessing, which is part of the fifth promise. The fourth promise was to bless those who blessed Abraham, and to curse those who cursed him. We see this fulfilled in his lifetime. The fifth and most significant promise was the promise that "in" or better "through" Abraham "all families of the earth" would "be blessed." We would have known that this is the promise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ even if Paul hadn't explained it to us in plain language 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.
So there it is. The Bible declares that the promise "In thee shall all nations be blessed" is a "preaching of the Gospel unto Abraham."

Eveything makes perfect sense. It is ALL GOSPEL - there was no "land promise" in Gen 12, and the promise concerning "the extent of his [natural] family" has only a tangential historical relevance since the primary purpose is obviously Gospel, as is evident from the way God used this passage in the New Testament. I really don't understand how you could miss these essential points. Please understand that I mean no offense, but if I were to speak plainly, my friend, I would have to say that emphasis upon carnal Israel seems to cause a blindness to the main and plain things of the Gospel.

As for Genesis 15, that is the "Genesis of the Gospel" which Paul used as the foundation of his preaching. The "seed" promised are all his spiritual children, the Church. The carnal children are not counted if they do not follow their father's footsteps of faith. This is the explicit teaching of the Holy Bible.

As for Genesis 22, that is the "Genesis of the Cross" in which God established the entire Gospel pattern of the sacrifice of Christ.

All the promises given to Abraham are GOSPEL, GOSPEL, GOSPEL. And that is one of the greatest signs of God's Eternal Wisdom. How else can we understand the Gospel being preached with such perfect clarity 2000 years before Christ was born?

Richard

joel

01-30-2008, 05:12 AM

there was no "land promise" in Gen 12,

Of course there was a land promise.........it is the "promised land". What I am hearing you say is that all that which was spoken to him was pointing ahead to the church.

A "gospel" is a message of good news. It was a gospel, good news message, to Abraham as it was given in stages starting with Genesis 12.

He was a man who lived in a Chaldean country, and was promised a land of his own by God which was shown to be the land of Canaan.

Joel

joel

01-30-2008, 05:18 AM

joel

01-30-2008, 05:29 AM

Please understand that I mean no offense, but if I were to speak plainly, my friend, I would have to say that emphasis upon carnal Israel seems to cause a blindness to the main and plain things of the Gospel.

It is the "carnal" Israel that has been blinded.

However you may choose to characterize it, you are claiming that the body of Christ, the church, has replaced Israel in God's plan. It is my belief that the church which is his body has a purpose, and, the nation has yet a purpose.

The "gospel" as you present it, then becomes solely focused on those who are fortunate enough to believe it, while the others, less fortunate, or less blessed with the critical analytical acumen to dig out the facts, are discarded.

When you go back to Genesis, the "gospel" as delivered to Abraham was God's "well-message" to him that all would be blessed, and the all includes that which on the earth, and that which is in the heavens.

Richard, I know that you see me as one who has failed to see what you see. I am not offended with that. I am not offended with you either in that you fail to see what I am seeing. My weakness in presenting it in words persists.

Joel

Brother Les

01-30-2008, 07:59 AM

joel Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard
there was no "land promise" in Gen 12, Of course there was a land promise.........it is the "promised land". What I am hearing you say is that all that which was spoken to him was pointing ahead to the church.

A "gospel" is a message of good news. It was a gospel, good news message, to Abraham as it was given in stages starting with Genesis 12.

He was a man who lived in a Chaldean country, and was promised a land of his own by God which was shown to be the land of Canaan.

Joel
The Land Is Mine

Written by Don Preston
Thursday, 11 May 2006
Sometimes small details mean a lot, when we see what they really mean. What might otherwise seem to be an unimportant historical fact, has, in reality, a world of theological meaning to it. Here is what I mean.

In Acts 4:34, Luke says something that too often fails to impress the modern reader, because we are so far removed from the concept of a Covenant Land. Luke tells us that that members of the nascent body of Christ in Jerusalem, "For all who were possessors of lands and houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid the at the apostles' feet." (Acts 4:34). So what is the big deal? What is so important about the Christians in Jerusalem selling their homes and lands? Real estate transactions are a commonplace event, aren't they? Well, not in Israel, and not in the manner described in Acts. Why is this?

It is because the Land of Israel never belonged to Israel in the first place! Now, this should not be construed to mean that God never fulfilled His promises to give Israel the land promised to Abraham, for He most assuredly did fulfill those promises (Joshua 21:43f). i Well, if God gave the land to Israel, how can it be said that the land never belonged to them, and what does this have to do with the Christians in Jerusalem selling their land? Incidentally, we have no record Christians outside of Judea selling their land as they did in Jerusalem and Judea. So, another question, why did this happen with the church in Jerusalem and Judea and not in the wider Roman Empire? Let's answer these questions in order.

First Question: How can it be said that the land never belonged to Israel?

The answer to this is simple. Read Leviticus 25:23: "The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me." The land never belonged to Israel as perpetual possession because they were merely tenants on the land. The land belonged to Jehovah!

This clearly implies that the possession of the land was conditional. Just as Deuteronomy 4 and chapters 28-30 detail, Israel's right to dwell in the land was dependent solely on their obedience to the Mosaic Covenant. Disobedience to that covenant would result in banishment from the land. Since Jehovah has forever removed the Mosaic Covenant, Israel does not even have that Covenant right to the land. I will not develop this further here, but this is important.

So the answer to the first question is that the land never belonged to Israel, independent of Jehovah and the Mosaic Covenant. The land belonged to Jehovah, and the Mosaic Covenant was their tenant contract for dwelling there.

Second Question: What does the fact that the land never actually belonged to Israel — and thus they were forbidden to sell their allotment — have to do with the Christians in Jerusalem selling their land?

It has everything to do with it.

In Matthew 23-24, Jesus predicted the utter desolation of the Temple and city. All the blood of the righteous, all the way back to Creation was to be demanded of Jerusalem in Jesus' generation (Matthew 23:34f). Her house was going to be desolate (Matthew 23:37).

When Jesus warned that their hallowed city and Temple were to be destroyed, he gave his disciples fair warning: "When you see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso reads let him understand, then let those who are in Judea flee." The disciples of Jesus knew that real estate values in Jerusalem and Judea were going to take a major hit! They knew that the Romans were going to desolate their city and lay their land waste. However, although this is directly related to the issue, this alone is not enough to explain why they were willing to sell their lands and houses. Jerusalem was desolated in B. C. 586 and the Jews never sold their land at that time, as they did in Acts 4.

As a matter of fact, in Jeremiah 32, Jehovah instructed Jeremiah that one of his kinsmen wished to sell his property, ii and told Jeremiah to purchase it, and record the sale carefully. Jeremiah did as he was told, but objected to Jehovah that he did not understand why he should do this in light of the impending destruction at the hands of the Babylonians (Jeremiah 32:24f). Why bother buying a piece of property when the city was about to be destroyed?

Jehovah's response was that the city was going to be re-inhabited, and life was going to go on as usual when He restored them to the land (Jeremiah 32:37f). The land would be given to Israel to enjoy once again. Thus, the reason for the careful recording of the "redemption" of the land from Jeremiah's relative.

However, in Acts, we find no such promise. We find no commands to carefully record the sale of the land. We find no promise of a return to the land. In fact, in direct contrast to the record of Jeremiah, we find that in Acts, there is no record as to who purchased the land. This may seem insignificant, yet it may actually be very important, because the land was not supposed to be sold to strangers at all. When land was sold, it was to be sold on the basis of the Year of Jubilee and, ideally, it was to be sold only to a family member (Leviticus 25). Interestingly, houses within a walled city, when sold, could only be redeemed for a one year period of time. After a year, they could not be redeemed (Leviticus 25:29).

Why are there no records of God instructing the Christians to carefully record the deed transactions, as in the case of Jeremiah? Why do we find no record of any of the Christians seeking to redeem their houses in Jerusalem — a walled city — anywhere in scripture? The answer is simple, but profound. In contradistinction to Jeremiah where we find the emphatic promise of restoration to the land, in the New Testament we have not one promise of Israel ever being promised to return to the land! The Christians, even at an early stage, were being told some very important things that allowed them to freely sell their long cherished houses and land.

They were told that in fulfillment of prophecy, the geo-centric Jerusalem would no longer be the theological center of the world (Jeremiah 3:14f), and their own Lord had told them that time was now present (John 4:20f).They were being told that the Temple and City was about to perish. (Matthew 24). They were being told, "This Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change (allexei, third person, singular, future) the customs Moses delivered to us." (Acts 6:14). iiii They were being told that they should no longer give heed to genealogies (1 Timothy 1:4). Remember that the genealogies were vital to any and all land transactions of redemption. They were hearing the message of a heavenly city and country (Hebrews 11:13f) in direct contrast to the earthly, carnal city that was not going to endure much longer (Hebrews 13:14). They were, in fact, placing their emphasis on their "citizenship" in the heavenlies, instead of emphasizing the city "that is in bondage with her children" (Galatians 4:22f).

Brother Les

01-30-2008, 08:10 AM

Thus, the Christians in Jerusalem, in light of the realities in Christ they were coming to understand, felt willing to divest themselves of their ancestral homes, houses and properties. Such actions would only have been viewed with consternation to say the least, and probably disdain, by their neighbors. In fact, the Christians could have been, if they were not in fact, viewed as law-breakers by selling their houses as they did. Remember, they were evidently selling their houses unconditionally. They were, so far as the record is concerned, not selling them in light of the Jubilee redemption, or in anticipation of restoration. They were just selling them, period! The implications are incredible.

There is another element in the New Testament that impacts this discussion, and that is the doctrine of circumcision. I am currently writing a book on the incredible importance of the circumcision controversy found in the NT. iv In 1983 I debated a dispensational minister, and used the NT doctrine of circumcision as a major part of my argumentation against his views. The results were devastating. He was totally unprepared for what I presented, because when properly considered, what the NT says about circumcision totally refutes any idea of a future restoration of national Israel, her Temple and cultus.

For brevity consider that without circumcision, a person was not considered a member of the covenant community (Genesis 17). Circumcision gave Israel the "title deed" to possession of the land (Joshua 5). The uncircumcised could not enter and worship at the Temple. See Acts 21 and the violent reaction of the crowd when they mistakenly believed that Paul had brought a Gentile into the Temple. In short, no circumcision no promises, no blessings!

Consider then what Paul, faithful Jew said about circumcision: "If any man is circumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing…for in Christ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails, but faith that works through love" (Galatians 5:4-6). For Paul, who once placed all of his hopes and expectations on the literal promises to Abraham and Israel, the central icons of Israel's identity had now become moot and meaningless. v Circumcision, the sign and seal of covenant relationship with Jehovah was now, not only fulfilled in that "circumcision not made with hands" (Colossians 2:11-2), but, because it was fulfilled, the physical act was now abrogated and meaningless.

We are told of course that in the millennium Israel will be restored to the land, and the Temple and cultus, including circumcision will be restored. However, if circumcision is restored, the only way to do that is to nullify, negate, and abrogate the blood-bought gospel of Jesus Christ. If circumcision causes one to fall from the grace of Christ, and loss the blessings of Christ (Galatians 5:3-6), then the only way to restore circumcision as a mandate of God, is to destroy the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Couple the doctrine of the meaninglessness of circumcision with the selling of homes and houses. The Judean Christians knew that the destruction of Jerusalem was to occur in their generation. They also were being instructed that Old Jerusalem, with all the emphasis on "land" was giving way to the "Jerusalem that is above." The Messiah was about to come and destroy the Old Temple, and set his true Tabernacle, one not made with hands (Hebrews 8:1f), in its place. They were being instructed that while the Old Temple and everything it represented and foreshadowed was indeed glorious, it was temporary by nature, and intended to pass (Hebrews 9:6-10). They were being told that since Messiah had come, in the Incarnation, and fulfilled the requirements of the genealogies, that they were no longer to give heed to those endless discussions. The point was moot. Everything that hinged on the genealogies, Messiah, priesthood, circumcision, land, was now, or about to shortly be, fulfilled.

God once placed tremendous significance on the land of Israel. It was "His land!" However, that land was chosen, not because it was intrinsically holy, or inherently important, but because God chose it to bring Messiah and his kingdom to a reality. The land, with its Temple, its priesthood, its worship, was only intended to hold a central place of importance until the Messiah came and established his kingdom, not on earth with a geographical center, but to rule from the throne of David, in heaven (Acts 2:29-36). When God fulfilled all of His promises to Israel, that land became nothing more than any other piece of real estate.

The land of Israel today has no special meaning. It is no longer "the holy land," and the people inhabiting the land are not Biblical Israel. vi The land never belonged to them exclusively in the first place. It belonged to God as a "loan" to them until His determinative purpose for the Messiah was fulfilled. The Jerusalem Christians knew that God was fulfilling His promises, and those promises are spiritual not earthly. If they were so willing to abandon their physical birthright in the capital city of Jerusalem, they surely believed that they were now about to receive the fulfillment of God's promises concerning the heavenly city and country (Hebrews 11:13f). The fact that Acts records that the Christians in Jerusalem were willing, so gladly, to sell their land allotments can mean only one thing, they knew that literal city was doomed, and they also knew they were now citizens of a greater, heavenly Jerusalem.

Don Preston

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

Jesus Christ was 'manifested' to take away The Sins of 'The World'....This happened at The Cross.... From Pentecost forward, there was no small geographic 'HolyLand'....The whole round ball of earth was now belonged to all of God 'Children' 'as; "The Holy Land"....Sons of Abraham, Sons of Jacob...and these were not just Sons of 'Judah' (who worshp Jesus Christ), these were The Sons of All twelve (thirteen) tribes and prosylites who worship King Jesus. And His Kingdom and His Glory is not one small spot of Palistine, for His 'elect', but the whole universe.

Blessings
Brother Les

Trumpet

01-30-2008, 08:11 AM

Hi Joel and Richard,

Looks to me like Richard; you are focused on the Gospel, as the center of all. per se. And Joel, you realize that God's plan includes dealing with those not in the line of faith.

I used to think alot like Richard in that the Gospel is the plain most important thing, until I saw that God has many things written to deal with those that departed from, or don't have any faith. And He deals with different groupings like individuals, small groups with like ideas, races, countries, continents, and the whole world simultaneously, and from the beginning of time all the way to the consummation, and it's all in the Word, because this is History, or His-Story.

The line of faith is great, but it is like the main subject. And like Richard always says, "the plain things are the main things", but that's like looking at the mountaintops and by that, claiming that you have seen everything important. I'd love to have a life that is very simple, and the path well known and easy as flying over the mountaintops, but that's not the way it is. God loves the world so much, that He is willing to get "down with the lowest", and He still provides scripture to show His dealings with them too.

Just because the present nation of Israel is "out of the loop" because of rejection of the Savior, doesn't mean that God's not dealing with them. Seek and you will find. This is an honor. It's too bad though, that many have used scripture along side a newspaper to prove it, when what they have omitted is a detailed study of the methods that God uses to deal, and those patterns, to determine what is really going on. And they also need to develop their own personal relationship with Jesus, because it is a marriage, and the intimate things are revealed to people only on the basis of how intimate they have become with Him. I know people that know far more than I do about these things, but they don't reveal it to others because they know that God uses intimacy as a determining factor in the amount that He reveals to someone. So if I want more, I have to work on my marriage. The great majority of those trying to figure out prophecy are blinded by their lack of marital intimacy, and that includes me.

Not by might,nor by power, but by My Spirit.....And more Spirit comes with more intimacy.

God Bless Don

Rose

01-30-2008, 08:47 AM

However you may choose to characterize it, you are claiming that the body of Christ, the church, has replaced Israel in God's plan. It is my belief that the church which is his body has a purpose, and, the nation has yet a purpose.

Hi Joel,

My way of seeing it is that the body of Christ "the church" didn't replace Israel....they were "remnant Israel", and now all who believe, receive the blessing of the "Promise" and that is Jesus Christ.

Of course there was a land promise.........it is the "promised land". What I am hearing you say is that all that which was spoken to him was pointing ahead to the church.

There was an earthly "promised land" (a type), and that was Canaan which was only realized in part because of unbelief. Now there is a heavenly "promised land" which is our eternal home. That is what the whole plan of God is about.....it began as types of what exists in heaven.

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough

01-30-2008, 10:26 AM

Of course there was a land promise.........it is the "promised land". What I am hearing you say is that all that which was spoken to him was pointing ahead to the church.

A "gospel" is a message of good news. It was a gospel, good news message, to Abraham as it was given in stages starting with Genesis 12.

He was a man who lived in a Chaldean country, and was promised a land of his own by God which was shown to be the land of Canaan.

Joel
Good morning Joel, :yo:

I didn't say that there was no "promised land" anywhere in the Bible. My point was there there is no "land promise" in Genesis 12. When you summarized the promises of Gen 12, all you said was "In Genesis 12, the land was promised, And the extent of his family would as numerous as the sand of the sea." This is why I made the comment I made. Your synopsis added the idea of a "land promise" that wasn't there and completely ignored the primary promise of that passage which was the promise of the Gospel.

It seems to me that the only way we will overcome the confusion surrounding this issue is to speak with the utmost clarity and precision.

Now as for the "land promise" - that is irrelevent to any discussion of the future of carnal Israel anyway for at least three very obvious reasons.

1) Scripture specifically declares that ALL the promises relating to the land have already been fulfilled.

2) The Old Covenant as a whole, which contained the promises, has been utterly fulfilled, so there is nothing left to be fulfilled.

3) The purpose of the "land promises" was to establish a place for God's carnal Temple, and that Temple fulfilled its purpose and was destroyed never to be rebuilt. (Which is why there are no prophecies that it would be rebuilt).

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-30-2008, 10:47 AM

However you may choose to characterize it, you are claiming that the body of Christ, the church, has replaced Israel in God's plan. It is my belief that the church which is his body has a purpose, and, the nation has yet a purpose.

My friend, your understanding of my position is entirely erroneous. I have never said that the Church has replaced Israel. Never! We've been talking about this for a long time, I hope we can get this elementary point cleared up.

I believe that the Church IS Israel! There was no "replacement" at all. Remember Paul? James? Peter? John? They were all Jews. They were the Apostles of the Remnant of Israel that blossomed into the Church. All True Israel that believed YHVH believed YHVH when He came to earth in Jesus Christ and so they became Christians. What could be simpler? What could be more obvious? There is not a word in the NT that suggests a "plan" other than the Gospel for the unbelieving carnal sons of Abraham. Indeed, the NT explicitly declares that they are not the children of God, they are not the children of promise, and they are not counted as the "seed of Abraham." I see NOTHING in the Bible to support these doctrines of carnal Israelitism. Its just not in the Bible.

The "gospel" as you present it, then becomes solely focused on those who are fortunate enough to believe it, while the others, less fortunate, or less blessed with the critical analytical acumen to dig out the facts, are discarded.

Again, that is a complete misunderstanding of my position. The unbelieving Jews are no different than the unbelieving Australians or unbelieiving Afticans or the unbelieving Zimbabweans. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God has "hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe" (Galatians 3:22). See that? The ONLY critierion taught in the Bible is FAITH. The idea of carnal heritage as a reason for a promise or special blessing from God is entirely unbiblical, whether for the Jew or for the Gentile. And my understanding of the Gospel has absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone's "critical analytical acumen" - on the contrary, I proclaim that you must become like a little child to enter the Kingdom of God (which obviously already exists or we couldn't enter it).

When you go back to Genesis, the "gospel" as delivered to Abraham was God's "well-message" to him that all would be blessed, and the all includes that which on the earth, and that which is in the heavens.

Exactly correct. That is the Promise of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All heaven and earth are blessed in Him.

Richard, I know that you see me as one who has failed to see what you see. I am not offended with that. I am not offended with you either in that you fail to see what I am seeing. My weakness in presenting it in words persists.

Joel
I am really happy that we are able to have this discussion without any hard feelings. I look forward to continuing with you Joel. If there is something you see that I don't see, please point it out to me! I will then look and tell you what I see. If I continue to miss something that is really there, it should become quite evident, and so I will be greatly indebted to you for opening my eyes to see something that had been hidden from me.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

01-30-2008, 11:33 AM

Hi Joel and Richard,

Looks to me like Richard; you are focused on the Gospel, as the center of all. per se. And Joel, you realize that God's plan includes dealing with those not in the line of faith.

Good morning Don, :yo:

Your opening statement makes a false dichotomy. There is no disjunction between the Gospel as "center" and the idea that God has "plans" for everyone under the sun, whether Jew or Gentile (for there is no difference, Rom 10:12). The true issue at hand is the Biblical teaching concerning God's "plan" for carnal unbelieving sons of Abraham. I assert that the Bible reveals no special plan for them different than the general Gospel plan that God has for the whole world Jew and Gentile. This does not mean that God doesn't have a special plan for them like some suggest ... I'm just saying that if there is such a plan, it was not revealed in the Bible.

I used to think alot like Richard in that the Gospel is the plain most important thing, until I saw that God has many things written to deal with those that departed from, or don't have any faith. And He deals with different groupings like individuals, small groups with like ideas, races, countries, continents, and the whole world simultaneously, and from the beginning of time all the way to the consummation, and it's all in the Word, because this is History, or His-Story.

Sure, who wouldn't agree that God deals differently with each individual or group or nation? But those differences are not differences of the Gospel. In that sense, God is the same for every person and has the same "Gospel plan" for every person, for He does not "respect any person" whether Jew or Genitle or Australian or Zimbabwean. "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him" (Romans 10:12).

The line of faith is great, but it is like the main subject. And like Richard always says, "the plain things are the main things", but that's like looking at the mountaintops and by that, claiming that you have seen everything important. I'd love to have a life that is very simple, and the path well known and easy as flying over the mountaintops, but that's not the way it is. God loves the world so much, that He is willing to get "down with the lowest", and He still provides scripture to show His dealings with them too.

I think a better metaphor would be like a fractal. For the most part, the tiniest details look like the "big picture" with variations. A simple example is the Sierpinski Triangle (http://math.rice.edu/~lanius/fractals/):

http://math.rice.edu/~lanius/images/sierpins.gif

Or here is a living organic example:

http://www.junkdna.com/fractal_self_similarity.JPG

The GOSPEL is the core revelation of the MIND OF GOD. The Bible can not be understood outside of the light of the Big Picture Purpose of God which is the GOSPEL. It is the LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL that illumines the rest of the Bible. It's what the Bible is all about. We see this Gospel pattern repeated on all levels of its structure, like a fractal with self-similarity over scale. Only when you see the Big Picture of the WHOLE can you understand the parts.

Just because the present nation of Israel is "out of the loop" because of rejection of the Savior, doesn't mean that God's not dealing with them.

No one said that God is "not dealing with them." The question is whether or not the Bible teaches that God has a "special plan" for them other than the Gospel of salvation in Christ. I assert the answer is "no" and that no one has ever been able to prove otherwise from the Bible.

Seek and you will find. This is an honor. It's too bad though, that many have used scripture along side a newspaper to prove it, when what they have omitted is a detailed study of the methods that God uses to deal, and those patterns, to determine what is really going on.

And that is exactly what I am seeking to do, my friend! It is my contention that "a detailed study of the methods ... and those patterns" reveals one blazing GOSPEL TRUTH that shines in the cloudless heavens with absolutely no ambiguity, giving light to the whole world. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in whom God has "summed up" all things! He is the center, core, heart, and meaning of the entire Biblical revelation. Knowledge of Him is the fundamental purpose of the Bible, and it is the very definition of Eternal Life (John 17:3).

Where in all that do we find some special plan for carnal Israel? A rebuilt Temple? Reinstituted bloody sacrifices? A return to the Old Covenant?

And they also need to develop their own personal relationship with Jesus, because it is a marriage, and the intimate things are revealed to people only on the basis of how intimate they have become with Him. I know people that know far more than I do about these things, but they don't reveal it to others because they know that God uses intimacy as a determining factor in the amount that He reveals to someone. So if I want more, I have to work on my marriage. The great majority of those trying to figure out prophecy are blinded by their lack of marital intimacy, and that includes me.

Not by might,nor by power, but by My Spirit.....And more Spirit comes with more intimacy.

God Bless Don
I very much appreciate that sentiment, Don. :thumb: But we certainly must not use it as a dodge for the plain fact that the Bible does not teach anything about a future for carnal Israel outside the Gospel. Or what? Is the Doctrine of Carnal Israelitism a "secret doctrine" known only to the "initiates" who have sufficient "intimacy" with Christ?

Richard

eliyahu

01-30-2008, 04:48 PM

Don't take thsi the wrong way Brother Les, but what is your point? I just do not see what you are trying to say.

eliyahu

01-30-2008, 05:23 PM

Don't take this the wrong way Brother Les, but what is your point? I just do not see what you are trying to say.

Trumpet

01-30-2008, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Richard:

Where in all that do we find some special plan for carnal Israel? A rebuilt Temple? Reinstituted bloody sacrifices? A return to the Old Covenant?

I said it before. The present nation of carnal Israel is trying to claim the birthright. They are mixed with the Edomites at present, so they are about to be judged by God, unless they turn to Him, repent for claiming to be the "chosen people" without Jesus, and accept Him. The broken bottle of Jeremiah has NOT yet happened. Spiritualizing it into the first century is only a partial fulfillment. That city of Jerusalem still stands. Jeremiah 19:11 says that God is going to break the people AND the city so that it CANNOT be made whole again. Jerusalem at present IS whole again as a city. God's plan includes the spiritual AND the physical. It always has. There will be no temple rebuilt, and who cares if they try to build one...It's meaningless!

I very much appreciate that sentiment, Don. But we certainly must not use it as a dodge for the plain fact that the Bible does not teach anything about a future for carnal Israel outside the Gospel. Or what? Is the Doctrine of Carnal Israelitism a "secret doctrine" known only to the "initiates" who have sufficient "intimacy" with Christ?

It's no dodge at all! The bible does show a carnal Israel. Ezekiel 38 and 39. Malachi 1. Obadiah. Isaiah 24:10 describes the bad carnal Jews of the last 2 millenium very well; and they have yet to be consumed off the land that God gave to their fathers!

Jerusalem, even though it's religion was void as of AD 33, they still were judged being carnal in AD 66 through 73. But they have returned as basically the same religion, and Judaism has not yet been broken. ALL enemies have to be under Jesus' feet before the end comes, and Judaism is one of those.

I'm not trying to say that I have received some "secret doctrines", because I'm more intimate with Jesus than you....nah, nah, nah! LOL! I'm stating the fact that intimacy with the Lord is a very important part of Him showing things to us, and I wish I had more intimacy! I don't believe that the Word of God's revelation is a closed book as of 70 AD. God's Word is infinite, and the proof that it applies ahead to our time has been proven by none other than you in your book! It just hasn't been looked into enough.

God Bless Don

Richard Amiel McGough

01-30-2008, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Richard:

I said it before. The present nation of carnal Israel is trying to claim the birthright. They are mixed with the Edomites at present, so they are about to be judged by God, unless they turn to Him, repent for claiming to be the "chosen people" without Jesus, and accept Him.

Ooops, I remember now. You did explain your view on modern Israel. Sometimes it's hard to hold all the different ideas together especially when the overlap with each other. Thanks for reminding me.

The broken bottle of Jeremiah has NOT yet happened. Spiritualizing it into the first century is only a partial fulfillment. That city of Jerusalem still stands.

Upon a rereading of the prophecy, it seems pretty clear that its primary fulfillment was in the Babylonian destruction of 586 BC:
Jeremiah 20:4-6 For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends: and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies, and thine eyes shall behold it: and I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive into Babylon, and shall slay them with the sword. 5 Moreover I will deliver all the strength of this city, and all the labours thereof, and all the precious things thereof, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give into the hand of their enemies, which shall spoil them, and take them, and carry them to Babylon.
Is there any justification to assert that this prophecy has not been fulfilled? I see none. It seems that we can know with perfect certainty that the "broken bottle prophecy" was utterly fulfilled in the Babylonian exile.

Jeremiah 19:11 says that God is going to break the people AND the city so that it CANNOT be made whole again.

Let's take a look at Jer 19:11:
Jeremiah 19:11-12 And shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole again: and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury.
I think your interpretation ignores the intended hyperbole of this verse. God was emphasizing the degree of the destruction of 586 BC to indicate that it would be total like a smashed bottle. It would be absurd to force a false hyperliteral interpretation on this verse and then to use that to deny the obvious fulfillment in 586 BC. Such would do extreme violence to the plain and incontrovertible declaration of Jer 20:4-6 that tells us the prophecy was fulfilled in the Babylonian exile.

Jerusalem at present IS whole again as a city. God's plan includes the spiritual AND the physical. It always has. There will be no temple rebuilt, and who cares if they try to build one...It's meaningless!

It seems absolutely impossible to apply Jeremiah 19 to the future. The prophecy declares that it would be fulfilled in the Babylonian exile of 586 BC.

It's no dodge at all! The bible does show a carnal Israel. Ezekiel 38 and 39. Malachi 1. Obadiah. Isaiah 24:10 describes the bad carnal Jews of the last 2 millenium very well; and they have yet to be consumed off the land that God gave to their fathers!
I would be delighted to review the prophecies you believe are still future. I do not believe any you have listed will withstand careful scrutiny.

Jerusalem, even though it's religion was void as of AD 33, they still were judged being carnal in AD 66 through 73. But they have returned as basically the same religion, and Judaism has not yet been broken. ALL enemies have to be under Jesus' feet before the end comes, and Judaism is one of those.

I'm not trying to say that I have received some "secret doctrines", because I'm more intimate with Jesus than you....nah, nah, nah! LOL! I'm stating the fact that intimacy with the Lord is a very important part of Him showing things to us, and I wish I had more intimacy! I don't believe that the Word of God's revelation is a closed book as of 70 AD. God's Word is infinite, and the proof that it applies ahead to our time has been proven by none other than you in your book! It just hasn't been looked into enough.

God Bless Don
I too wish I had more intimacy, and I thank God you are aware of this very important truth. And I'm glad you laughed at my obviously silly suggestion that you had a "secret doctrine." It appears we are tracking well here. :)

I agree that God's Word is infinite, but that doesn't mean it contains the schematics of the digital circuits in my TV, and neither does it mean that it reveals some future plan for carnal Israel which appears to contradict the plain teaching of what was revealed.

I really enjoy digging into these questions with you Don. I hope you don't get frustrated with my stubborness. All I am asking for is solid doctrines derived and supported from the Bible. That's not too much to ask for is it? If the Bible really does teach a future plan for carnal Israel, please show me where.

God bless you, my brother!

Richard

Brother Les

01-31-2008, 07:10 AM

eliyahu
Don't take this the wrong way Brother Les, but what is your point? I just do not see what you are trying to say.

The Gospel of God was to be inclusive to 'all the world'. The leaders of 'Israel/'Judah', made worshipping exclusive and restrictive, perverted....Being more concerned about 'the land' for 'them' (we were 'promised') than all of The World for God....'the land'was to be 'kept' at all 'costs'.... even to the point of selling their souls to other 'gods'. They were/are more concerned for a worldly possetion than a Heavenly one. Their 'land' promise is gone because God divorced/died to them and they can not come to term with that reality.

Rev 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

Rev 18:8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong [is] the Lord God who judgeth her.

Jerusalem/Israel of 'today' are living in the past in their minds. They are demanding 'a' Promise is a Promise 'forever', not realising that God has kept His Promise and is 'still' Keeping His Promise to His elect. God has given, to His elect, 'not just Canann, but the whole wide world. This was done 2,000 years ago. People who are not The Elect of God, who are not 'Israel', are trying to claim something that was never theirs in the first place.

Lev 25:23 ¶ The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land [is] mine; for ye [are] strangers and sojourners with me.

'You' can never lay claim to something that was never given 'to you'.

Brother Les

eliyahu

02-01-2008, 09:21 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

02-01-2008, 09:53 PM

Hi folks,
I have been considering what I might reply to a number of statements people have made and inquiries given to me about the Biblical evidence for unbelieving Jewish people having a current covenant relationship with God. This also covers an unfulfilled future plan for the Jewish people and the land of Israel. It is obvious that things I have posted have not "gotton through" to certain people. The same can be said of people who have posted to me or responded to my posts. We all have some strong faith in our views and that can be commendable. I am reading and researching that issue yet again. I am open to my being wrong about anything, though I have no reasons that were given to me to think I am wrong. I am, however, a limited human being and must therefor have diffidence and humility in everything :doh:.

Out of respect for you all and for God I am seeking to again either underscore and bolster my views of Israel or severly challenge them. :pray: Either I am wrong, y'all are, or we both are :eek:.

Until I am ready to address this again with you, I can discuss other related things like the millennium (how is it spelled?). I can tell that you, Richard, for one are a strong opponent to a future millennium. I am strongly the opposite. I will start another thread about it if I can.
Hello my brother Eliyahu!

I love your attitude, and hope we all can be willing to seek the truth regardless of who amongst us will be proven "right" or "wrong."

And I can assure you that we all feel like we are not "gettting through" sometimes. It can be frustrating ... and I am thankful for your perserverence.

As for unbelieving "Jews" having a covenant relation with God - how can that be true? The covenant was always a covenant of faith. If a Jew under the Old Covenant refused to abide by the covenant, he would be cut off from his people. And that's exactly how it is with the New Covenant that God made with the whole house of Israel - so now they either abide by the covenant God made with them, or they are cut off. How can you fail to agree with this? Is it not the most obvious and basic biblical teaching that we see everywhere in the Bible from Gen 17 on?

I'll check out your other thread on the Millennium ....

Richard

Brother Les

02-02-2008, 08:04 PM

Brother eliyahu
We are 2,000 year removed from the Scriptural New Testament writings. 2,000 years from the possiabilty that my fore fathers may have worshiped at the Temple. If at that time period of Pentecost my Jewish fore fathers were with Peter when The Holy Spirit came down, and Saved 3,000. If my fore Fathers worshiped with the Jerusalem Church, which also kept all of the Holy Feasts of The Lord and Worshiped at The Temple. My fore Fathers would have believed in Jesus CHrist as The Messiah and at the same time kept 'all' of the Mosaic Covenant Law....This is what Jesus commanded to do for all of those born under The Law of Moses. My fore Fathers as being a Sect of The Way, would have understood that when the Roman Armies had come to Jerusalem that it was time to flee The Earthly City of God. My Jewish fore Fathers, when they returned to Jerusalem from Pella and saw that it was plowed under, would understand that their 'old world' was gone...forever. My Jewish fore Father would understand that they could not worship under the Pharaseian led worship system that morphed (?) into what is called 'Judaism'...The Sadducean Sect was gone....The Priesthood had all been killed....My Jewish fore Father now understood what it really ment to be 'neither Jew or Greek', but only Christian....My fore Fathers Jewish nationality was tied to The Temple, to 'show' the world who he was....And that is the word that must be held up...."WAS"....for he was now 'a New Creation'...He was Christian...and only that....Christian....He could not 'go back' to something that was not there....something the had 'waxed old and faded away....Jeriamiah said, (paraphrase) "the Ark of The Covenant (old covenant), you will not visit it or see it or remember it NO MORE"....Yes, we 'remember' what it was and what it represented....an old covenant that has waxed old and faded away, never to return. We do not 'remember' it by worshiping any part of the system, type, styl, feast days, ect. These my (our) fore Fathers did in preparing for 'The New Age'...The New Covenant Age...Peoples paradiyms change...just as my fore Father paradiym had to change...You want to believe so very much in the traditions and worship system that your are now in. I have been in one of those 'systems' (denominations), and I believed that everyone one of those 'planks' and 'traditions', were correct. When I really started studying other 'traditions' and other 'paradiyms', I got what is termed..that 'deer in the headlight look'....when looking at other 'traditions', I could 'see' that 'this' tradition of 'theirs' was not right and 'this traditions' of 'theirs' was not 'right'....But when I 'looked' at what 'they' would 'say' about 'my tradition' and use Scripture... I would 'see' that 'MY' 'tradition' was not 'right' in 'some' matters'....and in thinking if...'one or two' 'things' do not 'match up'....What else does not follow Scripture, in 'my paradiym'? It made me understand so much more that Scripture has to inturpet Scripture and that I can not 'read' Scripture' as a from the United States, 2008. I have to read The Bible, as a First Century Hebrew, 'coming in Judgment' in THAT Day, AGE....

Blessings
Brother Les

Brother Les

Brother Les

02-02-2008, 08:26 PM