sign, sealed, and delivered

[TheForgiven]

Proponents of the Futurist doctrine must explain this pass.


Luke 21:20-21
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Jesus said to the Apostles, "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies..." and again, "These are the DAYS OF VENGEANCE [i.e. Day of the Lord] that ALL THINGS which are written MAY BE FULFILLED"

Critical thinking, but easy understanding.

Question: Was Jerusalem surrounded by armies in the first century?

Answer: YES

Question: Doesn't this mean that "All Things which are written" must be fulfilled during that time?

Answer: Yes

Question: Can Jesus be referring to a future surrounding of Jerusalem not applicable to the first century?

Answer: No possible chance.

Question: Since Jesus tied the surrounding of Jerusalem with the temple's destruction, doesn't this mean we (Preterist) are correct in showing that Jesus fulfilled all in the first century?

Answer: You know that's a solid yes.

Conclusion: All was fulfilled in the first century. :thumb:

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Proponents of the Futurist doctrine must explain this pass.

Jesus said to the Apostles, "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies..." and again, "These are the DAYS OF VENGEANCE [i.e. Day of the Lord] that ALL THINGS which are written MAY BE FULFILLED"

Critical thinking, but easy understanding.

Question: Was Jerusalem surrounded by armies in the first century?

Answer: YES

Question: Doesn't this mean that "All Things which are written" must be fulfilled during that time?

Answer: Yes

Question: Can Jesus be referring to a future surrounding of Jerusalem not applicable to the first century?

Answer: No possible chance.

Question: Since Jesus tied the surrounding of Jerusalem with the temple's destruction, doesn't this mean we (Preterist) are correct in showing that Jesus fulfilled all in the first century?

Answer: You know that's a solid yes.

Conclusion: All was fulfilled in the first century. :thumb:

Joe
Hey Joe,


Excellent, clear, and simple argument. I would add that you conclusion is confirmed by Daniel 12:6-7:
Daniel 12:6-7 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
But I have one question I hope you and the others will address. The only argument against you conclusion seems to be the idea that the phrase "all things which are written" should be interpreted not absolutely, but only as applying to all those things written concerning the end of the Jewish age, and that other things such as the "restitution of all things" and the "second coming" and the "general resurrection" are not included. I don't think that is correct, but it needs to be addressed.

Also - a note for the forum: I ate some chicken yesterday that was left out too long and I have been really sick for the last 24 hours. I hope to get more energy to post more tomorrow.

God bless!

Richard

[wstruse]

Hello Joe,


Luke 21:6-7 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Luke 21:20-22 is in direct response to the question asked by Yashua’s disciples of when the Temple would be destroyed. That is important context. Note the next verse.

Luke 21:23 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

What people? Which land?

If Jerusalem is 'trodden down of the Gentiles' until 'the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled' this directly implies that at some point Jerusalem will no longer be 'trodden down'. At some point after Jerusalem is destroyed the times of the Gentiles will come to an end. When do you think the time of the Gentiles will end? When did the time of the Gentiles begin?

Luke 21:24 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

I see Luke 21:1-24 as prophecy spoken to the Jewish people and describing what is going to happen from Yashua’s time up until the start of the time of the Gentiles. I see Luke 21:25-27 as describing what is to take place at the end of or after the time of the Gentiles is complete.

Luke 21:25-27 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; 26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.


Warm Regards,
Wstruse

[wstruse]

Richard,

I hope you feel better soon.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse

[TheForgiven]

Hello Joe,


Luke 21:6-7 6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. 7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?

Luke 21:20-22 is in direct response to the question asked by Yashua’s disciples of when the Temple would be destroyed. That is important context. Note the next verse.

Luke 21:23 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

What people? Which land?

Hello wstruse,

That's a great point. And I'll add to it. The temple's destruction was the entire context of the passage.

If we treat the questions (from any gospel) as applicable to three specific moments in time, that causes us to be confused. In fact, when many of us picked up the Bible for the very first time, and began to read these passages, our minds already had a preconieved notion of what time frame those questions is dealing with. That's the cause of for error.

The questions were asked in response to Christ speaking of the temple, so the answers are all centered around the temple.

I've also established before that the Apostles were not asking "When Jesus would return" because they didn't have a clue He was ever leaving. He was the Messiah man, and He's not going anywhere. Remember when He was arrested, they all lost hope. Remember when two of His disciples were walking, and Jesus walked with them though they didn't recognize Him, they were despressed and said, "We were hoping He was the one [i.e. The Messiah]". And considering the three questions were asked days before His crucifixion, it makes absolutely no sense to believe they were asking when Jesus would return. Rather, they were asking when the temple was going to be destroyed, and the "Signs of the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom" were noted through the surrounding of the armies against Jerusalem, and the miraculous events which took place during that time.

In conclusion I sternly believe that the Apostles were asking about the time-frame of the temple's destruction, and how His [Jesus] coming Kingdom would fulfill "all these things". The destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that the "Weeds" were being pulled from their roots. The old tree was chopped down, leaving only the stump.

Brother Richard, I hope you feel better.

Joe

[joel]

Proponents of the Futurist doctrine must explain this pass.



Jesus said to the Apostles, "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies..." and again, "These are the DAYS OF VENGEANCE [i.e. Day of the Lord] that ALL THINGS which are written MAY BE FULFILLED"

Critical thinking, but easy understanding.

Question: Was Jerusalem surrounded by armies in the first century?

Answer: YES

Question: Doesn't this mean that "All Things which are written" must be fulfilled during that time?

Answer: Yes

Question: Can Jesus be referring to a future surrounding of Jerusalem not applicable to the first century?

Answer: No possible chance.

Question: Since Jesus tied the surrounding of Jerusalem with the temple's destruction, doesn't this mean we (Preterist) are correct in showing that Jesus fulfilled all in the first century?

Answer: You know that's a solid yes.

Conclusion: All was fulfilled in the first century. :thumb:

Joe

Joe, there is no disagreement with me that all things that were written that were to be fulfilled began to be fulfilled at that time. Many of those things were, in fact, completed, including the destruction of the Temple and the holy city, Jerusalem, being trodden down of the Gentiles.

That portion of the prophecy is continuing to be fulfilled until this very day. The Gentiles continue to trod down the holy city.

And, the Jewish people have been "taken captive" and continue to be so until this day. That process surely began in the first century.

The critical issue of the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel remains to be a very agressively resisted part of the overall process.

The Kingdom of God is obviously primarily an internal kingdom as being within those who have been graced with His truth and revelation. This Kingdom is within all who are believers.

The issue of the Kingdom of heaven having an outward expression is the issue at the heart of our ongoing discussions.

You may, however, see no distinction between the two; Kingdom of God, and Kingdom of heaven.........

I am one who believes that the Kingdom of heaven will have an expression on the earth and it will involve Israel, and the nations.

In the interim, the Kingdom of God is within us, who believe, and we are a part of the rule of God both in the heavens and upon the earth.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Joe, there is no disagreement with me that all things that were written that were to be fulfilled began to be fulfilled at that time. Many of those things were, in fact, completed, including the destruction of the Temple and the holy city, Jerusalem, being trodden down of the Gentiles.

That portion of the prophecy is continuing to be fulfilled until this very day. The Gentiles continue to trod down the holy city.

Hello brother Joel.

I understand what you are saying. But allow me to ask you this honest question my friend.

You believe that the "Times of the Gentiles" are still going on today? That cannot be for a few good reasons, but for the sake of making this simple, here's why that won't work.

Jesus said in the very same passage, "These are the days of vengence that all things which are written are fulfilled..."

Now think clearly my friend. If you believe that they are still being "Trodden" by the Gentiles, then you must also believe that God's "Vengence" is still being poured upon them.

Again, if you believe the times of the gentiles are still being fulfilled, then you must also believe that God's vengance is still being poured out upon them. This also means that the "Day of the Lord" is still happening.

Do you see the mistake in that belief system?

Therefore, the Day of the Lord, or vengence upon this (That) people was fulfilled. That's why Christ spoke the parable of the wheat and the weeds to them. The Christians within Jerusalem who were spared from the destruction represented the wheat, while the weeds represented those who rejected the gospels as presented by the Apostles, and the certain gifts of the Holy Spirit, through signs and wonders.

And to be honest, I've never heard of God's "Day" being 2000+ years. Is this a new formula? I know you didn't state this, but this is what you're implying, unconsciously of course. The troddening of the Gentiles today is not the same as it was in the first century. They are not being tortured or killed. In fact, some of them are terrorists and are doing the killing. But that is for another subject. Furthermore, how could Israel have been reborn in 1947, if you believe the troddening of the Gentiles is still going on? You can't have a double contraditive fulfillment. If they are still being trodden, then their nation has not yet been reborn. Besides, the captivity began far before then, when the King of Babylon destroyed the city and the temple. This was repeated when Titus (Roman Empire) destroyed the city and the temple; and Daniel is affirmed by his vision, that this was going to happen.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Joe, there is no disagreement with me that all things that were written that were to be fulfilled began to be fulfilled at that time. Many of those things were, in fact, completed, including the destruction of the Temple and the holy city, Jerusalem, being trodden down of the Gentiles.

That portion of the prophecy is continuing to be fulfilled until this very day. The Gentiles continue to trod down the holy city.

I understand this view, but it is based on the idea that the old carnal Jerusalem was not utterly destroyed and resurrected as the New Jerusalem, the Church of God. This seems to be a very difficult idea for some folks to see or accept .... the old carnal earthly Jerusalem is contrasted by Paul with the heavenly Jerusalem, which seems to mean that the old ended and the new began. Is there anything in the NT that suggests a special future for any particular chunk of real estate on planet earth? I don't know of any.



The critical issue of the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel remains to be a very agressively resisted part of the overall process.

There are huge problems with the idea of a restoration of the first century Kingdom of Israel, the first being that God forgot to tell us about it in the NT. And the great prophecy of Exodus 19:6 was fulfilled in the Church (1 Pet 2:9) so how can it go back to carnal Israel again? And it seems contary to everything in God's plan. He is not interested in elevating one group of people over another. He did away with all that. The Kingdom of Israel was defined by the first covenant which no longer exists. God made a New Covenant with Israel. Just as the old Israel was defined by the old covenant, the New Israel is defined by the New Covenant. I don't see any relation between the carnal descendants of Abraham and eschatology.


The Kingdom of God is obviously primarily an internal kingdom as being within those who have been graced with His truth and revelation. This Kingdom is within all who are believers.

The issue of the Kingdom of heaven having an outward expression is the issue at the heart of our ongoing discussions.

You may, however, see no distinction between the two; Kingdom of God, and Kingdom of heaven.........

I am one who believes that the Kingdom of heaven will have an expression on the earth and it will involve Israel, and the nations.

This issue probably requires it's own thread. I do not know of any justification for the idea that the Kingdom of God is different than the Kingdom of Heaven. Where did you get this idea? The "Kingdom of Heaven" is just a pious Jew's way of refering to the Kingdom of God without using the word "God." Do not the parallel verses prove this? Consider:

Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Luke 6:20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

It seems pretty obvious that the Kingdom of God = the Kingdom of Heaven.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

I hope you feel better soon.

Warm Regards,
Wstruse
Thanks Wstruse,

I've been sleeping for most of the last 24 hours and finally seem to be feeling better. I'm able to enjoy soup and juice now. Should be almost back to normal by tomorrow.

Richard

[Rose]

Times of the Gentiles


IMO it seems that the 'times of the Gentiles' was fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.


Dan. 8:13-14 'Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [saint] which spoke, How long [shall be] the vision [concerning] the daily [sacrifice], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.'


Dan. 12:7 'And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by him that lives for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.'


Luke 21:22-24 'For these be the days of vengeance, thatall thingswhich are written may be fulfilled. 23) But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.'

When Jesus was talking to His disciples in the Olivet Discourse, He was telling them all the things that were going to happen to this generation (referring to it as the "times of the Gentiles"), like 1) being killed by the sword, 2) being taken away captive, and 3) Jerusalem being trampled: after which the times of the Gentiles would be fulfilled….those things all happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. These were things that Daniel also prophesied of; a time when all things would be finished.

Rom. 11:25 'For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.'

John 9:39 'And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.'

Likewise what the Apostle Paul was speaking of in his Epistle to the Romans was that the blindness of the unbelieving Jews (those who thought they could see) would continue until the fullness of God’s plan using the Gentiles for the judgment of Jerusalem had been fully accomplished.

The trampling underfoot that happened to Jerusalem by the Gentiles was the power of Rome that is symbolized by the Beast who is given power to continue 42 months.

Rev 13:5' And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty [and] two months.'

And that is the same time that is spoken of in Rev. 11:2, where the Gentiles are trampling the outer court, and the city.

Rev 11:2 'But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.'

This final 42 months that the Gentiles trample the city is what leads up to the ultimate destruction of the Temple. This time will come to an end in 70 A.D. because there is no more Jerusalem to be trampled, it has been destroyed. Then the time of God using the Gentiles (the power of Rome), to judge Jerusalem will have been fulfilled. Hence the times of the Gentiles has been fulfilled.

So the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles is the Gentile power of Rome which has control over the city. The only power the Jews have at this point is over the Temple, and their religious laws. This power that Rome has continues right up until the time the city is destroyed and the Jews taken captive….at which time there is no more city or temple, so the times of the Gentiles has been fulfilled!



Rose

[TheForgiven]

You got it rose! :clap2: I couldn't have stated that any better than you.

The "Times of the Gentiles" lasted (according to Revelation) for 42 months. That's why I'm having a difficult time understanding why, or how, those of the "Future Restoration of carnal Israel" is in the future. I'm also having a difficult time trying to understand why many teach that the Gentiles are still trampling the city. If the flag of King David represents the rebirth of Israel, how can that be considered a continued "Trampling"?

That's like saying that a sick person has been healed, but he or she is still taking medicine until sickness (which is gone) is finish. Why would a sick person need to take medicine if they are healed? So why would Israel be considered "Reborn" in 1947, if they are still being trampled?

Speaking of sickness, I hope you feel better brother Richard. I'm sure Rose is making you some delicious soup to help you feel better. :)

I spoke to my wife tonight, and she's got the flu. My daughter has it as well. My being away from home places a bit of stress on me when I'm not there to deal with these things. She's so sick that she can't even drive. And my daughter went to the hospital because she complained of stomach pains which caused her to vomit. The doctor's determined through X-Rays that her colon is backed up as far as the large intestines. So they gave her some laxatives, which aren't working.

Brothers and Sisters, please pray for my daughter. I'm very afraid that she might need surgery, at age 6. She had the very same problem at her birth and they almost has to do surgery on her then.

Please pray for my family my dearest friends. :pray::pray::pray::pray::pray::pray::pray:

Seven prayers = perfection.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You got it rose! :clap2: I couldn't have stated that any better than you.

The "Times of the Gentiles" lasted (according to Revelation) for 42 months. That's why I'm having a difficult time understanding why, or how, those of the "Future Restoration of carnal Israel" is in the future. I'm also having a difficult time trying to understand why many teach that the Gentiles are still trampling the city. If the flag of King David represents the rebirth of Israel, how can that be considered a continued "Trampling"?

I tend to agree with Rose's take on the times of the Gentiles, but I am not competely settled on it because it feels like a view demanded from "interpretational consistency" more than from the text itself. I am happy to let it remain ambiguous if I don't have a convincing answer right now. It's not a "threat" to my eschatology because the "times of the Gentiles" is too ambigous to be used as the foundation of any eschatological system because the exact phrase is used only once in the Bible, and so we have no confirming Biblical witness of what it really means, so we have to make a >>>guess<<< that fits with our preconceived notions. But then if we assume that the reference in Rev 11 is to the same time, then it ends in 70 AD for sure. But there is some support for the futurist understanding from Romans 11:25 but that speaks of the "fulness of the Gentiles" which is not the same as the "time of the Gentiles" and it is in a highly contested passage anyway, so it can not serve as a solid stone in the foundation of any eschatological system.

So we need to find the FOUNDATION of our eschatology. Personally, I believe that a firm and unshakeable foundation is found in the integrated prophetic complex of OD-Dan-Rev fulfilled in 70 AD, confirmed by History. The "loose ends" in this understanding involve things that are obviously figurative (stars falling, red dragon, etc) or heavenly (such as the resurrection). [Note that "heavenly" does not mean "unreal." Christ is in His resurrected body in heaven right now - so its plenty "real" up there.]



That's like saying that a sick person has been healed, but he or she is still taking medicine until sickness (which is gone) is finish. Why would a sick person need to take medicine if they are healed? So why would Israel be considered "Reborn" in 1947, if they are still being trampled?

Yes, I think that is a good point that supports Rose's point of view. It's really all based on the meaning of "until."



Speaking of sickness, I hope you feel better brother Richard. I'm sure Rose is making you some delicious soup to help you feel better. :)

Thank you ... I am! :) I'm eating food again and went for a three mile walk with Rose under the beautiful springtime sun.


I spoke to my wife tonight, and she's got the flu. My daughter has it as well. My being away from home places a bit of stress on me when I'm not there to deal with these things. She's so sick that she can't even drive. And my daughter went to the hospital because she complained of stomach pains which caused her to vomit. The doctor's determined through X-Rays that her colon is backed up as far as the large intestines. So they gave her some laxatives, which aren't working.

Brothers and Sisters, please pray for my daughter. I'm very afraid that she might need surgery, at age 6. She had the very same problem at her birth and they almost has to do surgery on her then.

Please pray for my family my dearest friends. :pray::pray::pray::pray::pray::pray::pray:

Seven prayers = perfection.

Joe
Here's one prayer for your daughter and you and the rest of your family. :pray:

I'm sure there will be many more from other members!

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Sorry everyone for the delayed responses. School is getting the best of me, with very little sleep, and an old body that's wearing down. :lol:

My family is doing much better, thanks to all of your prayers. Now pray that I'm able to complete my training without having a heart attack. :eek:

Please allow me to catch up on the other posts and I'll add more information or comments to this post sometime this evening.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sorry everyone for the delayed responses. School is getting the best of me, with very little sleep, and an old body that's wearing down. :lol:

My family is doing much better, thanks to all of your prayers. Now pray that I'm able to complete my training without having a heart attack. :eek:

Please allow me to catch up on the other posts and I'll add more information or comments to this post sometime this evening.

Joe
Hey bro! Glad you made it through, and that your family is better!

I look forward to your renewed contributions ...

Richard

[TheForgiven]

But then if we assume that the reference in Rev 11 is to the same time, then it ends in 70 AD for sure. But there is some support for the futurist understanding from Romans 11:25 but that speaks of the "fulness of the Gentiles" which is not the same as the "time of the Gentiles" and it is in a highly contested passage anyway, so it can not serve as a solid stone in the foundation of any eschatological system.

I believe you are right on this point. Paul speaks of the "Fullness" of the Gentiles are to come into the Kingdom, and then shall the end come, when the AC is defeated by Christ and His Kingdom.

Imagine if you will, two nations fighting in ancient times. One massive army fighting against the other massive army. Eventually, one nation wins. Thinking in terms of an earthly army, we know that the nation of the victorious army rules over all the land, and all nations subjected to its king. We have the same situation with the Kingdom of Christ (The Church). Only Christ does not use the Church to fight battles with weapons fashioned by hands; He uses his Kingdom, the Church, through testimony, faith, and influence. Well what does this have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem? A gentile army destroyed Jerusalem [of the flesh], but how does the Church fit in with this? Only in this way.

The works of the Apostles, and their followers built the Church. We both know that the Church was first built in Jerusalem, which eventually spread unto all the nations in the first century. When the "Fullness" of the Gentiles had come in, spawning the end of the false Jerusalem, this somehow has a connection with the AC. IMO, the AC was probably Nero Caesar, who seemed to believe that Simon Magus was a god. According to legion, Simon Magus performed magical miracles, which deceived the Emperor, along with a few Pharisee's who believed Simon to be the Messiah. This leads us to the story of Peter duking it out with Simon in a contest. This contest resulted in the falling of Simon, several hundred feet and both legs were broken. This eventually led to Peter's, and Paul's execution; one at the cross and the other loses his head. The result is Jerusalem's destruction four years later. The Church hid until this destruction was completed.

Therefore, in a sense, I see a dual fulfillment. On the one hand, the Church had grown to enough capacity that it was ready to take on the world; what was once a baby girl, became a full-grown woman, eventually becoming the Bride of the Messiah. The first Bride, Jews of the flesh, dies by the hand of God, because of her adultery. I find it ironic that Nero Caesar died 3 1/2 years earlier. So I'm seeing a very close connection between these events.

All of this fits in, as far as I can tell. Therefore, the "Fullness of the Gentiles" was a representation of the Apostles evangelizing the nations. This included China, Africa, Asia Minor, and all the other surrounding nations. Once their mission was completed, then came the war between the Romans (led by the hand of God) and the false Jews (led by Satan); this resulted in her death, along with the death of Nero Caesar, Simon Magus, and all the Apostles (some exclude St. John).

Here is more information. Figuratively speaking, the wedding supper was not the destruction of Jerusalem, for the destruction of Jerusalem represented the fire of judgment. The wedding supper, IMHO, was a figure for the Church gaining ground over the Roman Empire. "The birds of the air" is a picture of souls hearing the gospel and wanting to find rest. Just as the birds of the air look for trees to find rest for its wings, these represent souls finding rest for their wandering, and they find a beautiful tree; this tree is the Church.

That is my input. What do you all think?

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But then if we assume that the reference in Rev 11 is to the same time, then it ends in 70 AD for sure. But there is some support for the futurist understanding from Romans 11:25 but that speaks of the "fulness of the Gentiles" which is not the same as the "time of the Gentiles" and it is in a highly contested passage anyway, so it can not serve as a solid stone in the foundation of any eschatological system.
I believe you are right on this point. Paul speaks of the "Fullness" of the Gentiles are to come into the Kingdom, and then shall the end come, when the AC is defeated by Christ and His Kingdom.
Hi Joe,

Glad you are back!

As for the "AC" being defeated by Christ - I'm not sure where the Bible teaches anything about that. The only individuals explicitly identified as "antichrist" are those who teach the heretical doctrines that 1) Christ did not come in the flesh or 2) Christ was not the Messiah. I don't know of any passage that says Christ would defeat "The Antichrist" --- of course, there is that verse that speaks of Christ destroying the "man of sin" but that appears to have been fulfilled in 70 AD, since the "man of sin" was sitting in the Temple which was destroyed in 70 AD. (Of course, another interpretation understands the "man of sin" as sitting in the "Temple" which in the NT is the Church ... but that's another issue).


Imagine if you will, two nations fighting in ancient times. One massive army fighting against the other massive army. Eventually, one nation wins. Thinking in terms of an earthly army, we know that the nation of the victorious army rules over all the land, and all nations subjected to its king. We have the same situation with the Kingdom of Christ (The Church). Only Christ does not use the Church to fight battles with weapons fashioned by hands; He uses his Kingdom, the Church, through testimony, faith, and influence. Well what does this have to do with the destruction of Jerusalem? A gentile army destroyed Jerusalem [of the flesh], but how does the Church fit in with this? Only in this way.

Yep - we know the "weapons of our warfare are not carnal!" We are commanded to take up the "shield of faith" and the "sword of the Spirit." Your intepretation is based on solid Scripture.


The works of the Apostles, and their followers built the Church. We both know that the Church was first built in Jerusalem, which eventually spread unto all the nations in the first century. When the "Fullness" of the Gentiles had come in, spawning the end of the false Jerusalem, this somehow has a connection with the AC. IMO, the AC was probably Nero Caesar, who seemed to believe that Simon Magus was a god. According to legion, Simon Magus performed magical miracles, which deceived the Emperor, along with a few Pharisee's who believed Simon to be the Messiah. This leads us to the story of Peter duking it out with Simon in a contest. This contest resulted in the falling of Simon, several hundred feet and both legs were broken. This eventually led to Peter's, and Paul's execution; one at the cross and the other loses his head. The result is Jerusalem's destruction four years later. The Church hid until this destruction was completed.

Therefore, in a sense, I see a dual fulfillment. On the one hand, the Church had grown to enough capacity that it was ready to take on the world; what was once a baby girl, became a full-grown woman, eventually becoming the Bride of the Messiah. The first Bride, Jews of the flesh, dies by the hand of God, because of her adultery. I find it ironic that Nero Caesar died 3 1/2 years earlier. So I'm seeing a very close connection between these events.

All of this fits in, as far as I can tell. Therefore, the "Fullness of the Gentiles" was a representation of the Apostles evangelizing the nations. This included China, Africa, Asia Minor, and all the other surrounding nations. Once their mission was completed, then came the war between the Romans (led by the hand of God) and the false Jews (led by Satan); this resulted in her death, along with the death of Nero Caesar, Simon Magus, and all the Apostles (some exclude St. John).

Here is more information. Figuratively speaking, the wedding supper was not the destruction of Jerusalem, for the destruction of Jerusalem represented the fire of judgment. The wedding supper, IMHO, was a figure for the Church gaining ground over the Roman Empire. "The birds of the air" is a picture of souls hearing the gospel and wanting to find rest. Just as the birds of the air look for trees to find rest for its wings, these represent souls finding rest for their wandering, and they find a beautiful tree; this tree is the Church.

That is my input. What do you all think?

Joe
I take the "supper" of Rev 19 a little more "literally" in that it seems to me that the "birds of the air" were feasting on the literal dead bodies of the millions slain Jews who rejected Christ. There were two suppers - one in heaven where there was joy to witness the final judgment on the apostate whore, and then on earth where literal dead bodies were eaten by birds.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I take the "supper" of Rev 19 a little more "literally" in that it seems to me that the "birds of the air" were feasting on the literal dead bodies of the millions slain Jews who rejected Christ. There were two suppers - one in heaven where there was joy to witness the final judgment on the apostate whore, and then on earth where literal dead bodies were eaten by birds.

Richard

Oops, brother Richard, I apologize about that. I made a mistake. You are correct about the literal interpretation of the birds eating the flesh of kings, princes, and mighty men. You're talking about this passage, right?


Revelation 19:21
And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

This is the passage I was referring to:


Matthew 13:32
31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.”

Christ shows that the Kingdom of Heaven (The Church) is like a mustard seed, which when planted, grows into a tree which provides rest for the birds of the air. See the connection?

Sorry for the misquote on my part. :thumb:

Joe

[Joe]

Hello all,

I am new to the forum and I'm sure I don't know where you all are coming from nor do I know where you are trying to go. But I do have a few questions.

What do you think that the trodding down of Jerusalem means? Could it mean that the city of Jerusalem would be under the control of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled?

When were these scriptures fulfilled?

Zec 14:1 ¶ Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 ¶ And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

When did all nations gather against Jerusalem to battle?

When did His feet stand on the Mount of Olives and the Mount cleave in two?

What did the Prophet mean, and when was he talking about, when he said that there would no more utter destruction, but Jerusalem would be safely inhabited?

Remember that this is Zachariah, one of the last Prophets of the Old Testament.

I have many other questions but my time is limited and as I said earlier I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

May the grace of God be upon us.

Joe
__________________________________________________ _____________

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

[Joe]

Hello all,

Lu 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

until<achri> the times <kairos> of the Gentiles <ethnos> be fulfilled <pleroo>

891. acri achri, akh'-ree -or achris akh'-rece; akin to 206 (through the idea of a terminus); (of time) until or (of place) up to:--as far as, for, in(-to), till, (even, un-)to, until, while.

2540. kairov kairos, kahee-ros' -of uncertain affinity; an occasion, i.e. set or proper time:--X always, opportunity, (convenient, due) season, (due, short, while) time, a while.

It seems to me that they (the Jews or dwellers in Jerusalem) shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all nations, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles seems to me to be a parenthetical statement indicating how long they (the Jews) would be led captive into all nations.

The times of the Gentiles to me is the time that the Gentiles would control the city of Jerusalem. Unless I am wrong the Gentiles have controlled Jerusalem from that time until 1967 when the Jews gained control of the city.

My knowledge of history is limited so please bear with me.

Grace to you,

Joe
__________________________________________________ _______

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

[joel]

Hello all,

Lu 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

until<achri> the times <kairos> of the Gentiles <ethnos> be fulfilled <pleroo>

891. acri achri, akh'-ree -or achris akh'-rece; akin to 206 (through the idea of a terminus); (of time) until or (of place) up to:--as far as, for, in(-to), till, (even, un-)to, until, while.

2540. kairov kairos, kahee-ros' -of uncertain affinity; an occasion, i.e. set or proper time:--X always, opportunity, (convenient, due) season, (due, short, while) time, a while.

It seems to me that they (the Jews or dwellers in Jerusalem) shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all nations, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles seems to me to be a parenthetical statement indicating how long they (the Jews) would be led captive into all nations.

The times of the Gentiles to me is the time that the Gentiles would control the city of Jerusalem. Unless I am wrong the Gentiles have controlled Jerusalem from that time until 1967 when the Jews gained control of the city.

My knowledge of history is limited so please bear with me.

Grace to you,

Joe
__________________________________________________ _______

Col 1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Joe, I would guess that there are two major belief systems among those who post here;
1.) those who would number themselves with the preterists.....those who see the fulfillment of prophecies as having been accomplished (for the most part, or maybe in full).
2.) those who would not number themselves with the preterist....these are called (mainly by the preterists) futurists....who see that there are some (maybe more than just a few, but many) unfulfilled prophecies.

A very strong preterist opinion is that Israel has been set aside as a nation and will no longer, as a nation and as a people, be used as they were in the past. They would consider that the evolutionary process of God's plan has resulted in the "church" being at the center of the plan. Israel is now a thing of the past.

A very strong futurist opinion is that Israel has been set aside temporarily, and that when the "fulness" of both the time, and the "fulness" o the number of Gentiles comes to completion, they (Israel) will be restored.

A futurist would assert that the trodding down of Jerusalem is continuing to occur........"until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"....which is yet future. A preterist would assert that the "times" have been fulfilled.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

A very strong preterist opinion is that Israel has been set aside as a nation and will no longer, as a nation and as a people, be used as they were in the past. They would consider that the evolutionary process of God's plan has resulted in the "church" being at the center of the plan. Israel is now a thing of the past.

A very strong futurist opinion is that Israel has been set aside temporarily, and that when the "fulness" of both the time, and the "fulness" o the number of Gentiles comes to completion, they (Israel) will be restored.

A futurist would assert that the trodding down of Jerusalem is continuing to occur........"until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"....which is yet future. A preterist would assert that the "times" have been fulfilled.

I understand your rationality brother Joel. But Preterist don't believe in a substitute Israel, as we're often accused of. We know the difference between the "SHADOW" and the "REALITY".

Jerusalem of old was a shadow of what was to come. The Law of old, was a shadow of what was to come. The animal sacrifices were a shadow of what was to come. And lastly, the former kingdom was a shadow of what was to come. This is not substitution, but fulfillment. That's why Futurist's have such a difficult time understanding the difference. What we see as "Fulfillment", they see as "replacement".

Were the animal sacrifices commanded under the Law not replaced by the One Glorious sacrifice of Jesus?

Was not the former temple system, where only the High Priest could enter once a year with blood not his own, not replaced by the true High Priest; our Perpetual High Priest who entered heaven itself, and not the "COPY"?

Was not the Law itself, a shadow of righteousness, not fulfilled in us who have the Law within our hearts, through the Holy Spirit, and not the written letter?

Don't you see the differences my friend. We do not teach "replacement" theology, but fulfillment.

Here's one more for you.

Was not the Jew of the flesh, a picture of the Jew at heart? Doesn't Paul state that a Jew IS NOT A JEW who is one outwardly, with circumcision made of hands? Why not? Because a Jew is a Jew spiritually, who's circumcision was of the heart, by the Spirit and not the letter.

Wasn't circumcision made of hands a symbol or shadow of the circumcision of Christ through our hearts?

Let go of the "Shadow" and embrace the eternal truth, brother Joel. Flesh will get you no where. You are either in the Israel of God, or the Israel of flesh.

It's your choice.

Joe

[joel]

Don't you see the differences my friend. We do not teach "replacement" theology, but fulfillment.


Thanks. I have struggled with the "replacement" phraseology, and now have been given a more accurate term, "fulfillment".

I was trying to express it somewhat in that way, when I characterized it as a process ("evolutionary"......even though I know we don't like to use the term evolution).


Was not the Jew of the flesh, a picture of the Jew at heart? Doesn't Paul state that a Jew IS NOT A JEW who is one outwardly, with circumcision made of hands? Why not? Because a Jew is a Jew spiritually, who's circumcision was of the heart, by the Spirit and not the letter.



You have used Romans 3:28,29 as an example to help me understand your viewpoint;
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which outward in the flesh;
29 But he is a Jew, which one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Do you think he is saying;
A. The Jew (one who is a descendant of Israel) is not a true Jew unless he is circumcised in the heart, of the spirit,
or,
B. The true Jew (irrespective of nationality) is one who is circumcised in the heart?

I would assume that you would agree with B., since you also said;


Wasn't circumcision made of hands a symbol or shadow of the circumcision of Christ through our hearts?

Let go of the "Shadow" and embrace the eternal truth, brother Joel. Flesh will get you no where. You are either in the Israel of God, or the Israel of flesh.

It's your choice.



If you mean that by embracing the "eternal truth", .........we, who are believers, are now "the Israel of God", whereas, Israel, as long as they are not circumcised in the spirit, are the Israel of the flesh; is that what you are saying?

Joel

Joel

[Rose]

Jerusalem of old was a shadow of what was to come. The Law of old, was a shadow of what was to come. The animal sacrifices were a shadow of what was to come. And lastly, the former kingdom was a shadow of what was to come. This is not substitution, but fulfillment. That's why Futurist's have such a difficult time understanding the difference. What we see as "Fulfillment", they see as "replacement".

Were the animal sacrifices commanded under the Law not replaced by the One Glorious sacrifice of Jesus?

Was not the former temple system, where only the High Priest could enter once a year with blood not his own, not replaced by the true High Priest; our Perpetual High Priest who entered heaven itself, and not the "COPY"?

Was not the Law itself, a shadow of righteousness, not fulfilled in us who have the Law within our hearts, through the Holy Spirit, and not the written letter?

Don't you see the differences my friend. We do not teach "replacement" theology, but fulfillment.

Here's one more for you.

Was not the Jew of the flesh, a picture of the Jew at heart? Doesn't Paul state that a Jew IS NOT A JEW who is one outwardly, with circumcision made of hands? Why not? Because a Jew is a Jew spiritually, who's circumcision was of the heart, by the Spirit and not the letter.

Wasn't circumcision made of hands a symbol or shadow of the circumcision of Christ through our hearts?

Let go of the "Shadow" and embrace the eternal truth, brother Joel. Flesh will get you no where. You are either in the Israel of God, or the Israel of flesh.

It's your choice.

Joe

Excellent post Joe, :clap2:

You did a great job explaining the differences between a "Preterist" and a "Futurist".

I think we Preterists need to "coin" a new word "fulfillment theology".

God bless

Rose

[joel]

Some clarification would be helpful.

Would you say that the preterist viewpoint is that the true Jew is anyone who is circumcised of the heart? (Which circumcision would occur upon being "saved").

Which would mean,then, that the Israel of God is that body in which the true Jews belong?

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello all,

I am new to the forum and I'm sure I don't know where you all are coming from nor do I know where you are trying to go. But I do have a few questions.

Hi Joe,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:



What do you think that the trodding down of Jerusalem means? Could it mean that the city of Jerusalem would be under the control of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled?

I think your suggestion is a very natural reading of that verse, but I don't think it is correct because of what we learn from the rest of the Bible. We know that God contrasts the earthly carnal Jerusalem with the heavenly spiritual Jerusalem "who is the mother of us all." This makes me think that the times of the Gentiles probable refers to the whole span of time from the Babylonian exile up to the destruction in 70 AD. I say this because Jerusalem was under Gentile rule that whole time, and then it was destroyed and resurrected as the New Jerusalem, the Church of God in Christ.


When were these scriptures fulfilled?

Zec 14:1 ¶ Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 ¶ And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.
10 All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.
11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

When did all nations gather against Jerusalem to battle?

When did His feet stand on the Mount of Olives and the Mount cleave in two?

What did the Prophet mean, and when was he talking about, when he said that there would no more utter destruction, but Jerusalem would be safely inhabited?

Remember that this is Zachariah, one of the last Prophets of the Old Testament.

I have many other questions but my time is limited and as I said earlier I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

May the grace of God be upon us.

Joe
__________________________________________________ _____________

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
I don't know of any convincing interpretations of Zechariah 14 from either the preterist or the futurist perspective. The preterist interpretation is very symbolic and so open to much debate, and a literalist futurist interpetation has many problems, not the least of whihc being that it appears to be impossible because the earthly carnal Jerusalem ended as the "city of God" when the first covenant ended and the Temple and the city were destroyed. The idea of a literal future fulfillment completely contradicts the entire flow of the Gospel Story which proclaims Christ as the Savour of the World in whom we all are united, there being neither Jew nor Gentile. It seems contrary to suggest that God will go backwards and reinstitute an Old Covenant style theocratic nation in the middle east. It just doesn't make sense to me.

The thing to understand is that no one has all the answers. I have learned to live with the tension of not being able to explain every verse. My peace comes from knowing the things God intended us to know which are the main things and the plain things that are verified by a large set of mutually confirming witnesses. The rest I leave alone in the sense of "doctrine" because if God did not establish it clearly and unambiguously with multiple mutually confirming passages, then it is wrong to be dogmatic.

I'm glad you are here with you tough quesitons Joe. It's very important to look at all of these questions.

God bless!

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If you mean that by embracing the "eternal truth", .........we, who are believers, are now "the Israel of God", whereas, Israel, as long as they are not circumcised in the spirit, are the Israel of the flesh; is that what you are saying?

Joel
Hi Joel,

I think we might make some progress if we could come to a proper understanding of what is meant by "Israel." As far as I can tell you define "Israel" as consisting of all the physical descendents of Jacob. I do not believe that is correct for two reasons. First, it contradicts the pattern God established in Abraham and Isaac. Ishmael proves that being a son of Abraham did not automatically ensure that you would receive any promises from God. Esau proves that being a son of Isaac did not automatically ensure that you would receive any promises from God, even though He said that "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." It is no different with Jacob. Indeed, the Bible explicitly declares that being an Israelite in the flesh means nothing when it comes to the promises of God.

The second reason is that being "of Israel" has nothing to do with ancestory at all. It is a covenant relationship. A male child of an Israelite not circumcised was cut off from his people, that is, he would not be "Israel." And now that there is no more covenant of circumcision,there is no definition of "Israelite."

If we could discuss this to the point of coming to a clear articulation and mutual understanding, I think we would all benefit.

Richard

[joel]

I think we might make some progress if we could come to a proper understanding of what is meant by "Israel."

Israel is............the twelve tribed nation that was chosen by God that were of the 12 sons of Jacob, who had his name changed to Israel. The family, descending from Jacob, is the subject of the history recorded in the books known as the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi.

The family of Jacob, through the son Judah, is the kindred in the flesh of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Who might you say they are?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Israel is not defined by birth right according to the flesh. Israel is defined as the city God loves, the people of His calling, and the that of the highest mountain. This Kingdom endures forever, and shines like the stars of the sky, and whose children are more than the stars of the sky.

Flesh does not determine whether or not you are an Israelite, but the Spirit does. For Christ is a Jew, and we through Him, have become Jews by adoption as sons of God. If you are in Christ, then you are a Jew. And we who are of the Jewish belief make up Israel.

Pauls clearly explains this over and over, and we all know the scriptures used to prove this.

Israel is of God, not of flesh.

Joe

[joel]

Pauls clearly explains this over and over, and we all know the scriptures used to prove this.

Israel is of God, not of flesh.

Joe


Paul clearly explains what????......that we are Jews.

And now we are to accept that Paul's teachings are plain and easily understood concerning these matters..........so, I think not.

But, setting Paul's teachings aside, where does it say in non-Pauline scripture that we are all Jews?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Paul clearly explains what????......that we are Jews.

And now we are to accept that Paul's teachings are plain and easily understood concerning these matters..........so, I think not.

But, setting Paul's teachings aside, where does it say in non-Pauline scripture that we are all Jews?

Joel


Revelation 2:9
I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9
I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.

Christ explains to a GENTILE Church in Asia Minor that there were False Jews who claimed to be Jews, but in truth were nothing more than a temple of Satan. Now some could argue that these were Gentiles pretending to be Jews, but you must first prove that historically before claiming this as even a possible truth. As far as I know, there are no accounts of a foreigner, even to this day, who pretended to be Jews of the flesh.

The message here is clear. Just as the false Jews condemned Christ to the cross, these in Asia Minor were causing hardship among the Christians in Ephesus. Moreover, Ephesus had many Jews [of the flesh] who dwelled there.

Some could also argue that these were false Christians. However, that too would not work because these who claimed to be Jews were harassing them, and not pretending to be one of them. In addition, which group of people harassed the Christians in the beginning? We know that Jews of the flesh, those of the circumcision group, were the primary persecutors of the Church. Of course, Gentiles also harassed Christians, but that wasn't the context of the above passages.

Lastly, I fail to see your logic in creating a rule that quoting Paul is not sufficient. :( It is not as difficult to believe, but I can understand the difficulty for some to accept that Jews make up Israel spiritually, and not fleshly. “Why” is beyond me, but I know that Jews of God's Kingdom is not based on flesh, but on spirit. Jews of the flesh were part of the old covenant. However, we no longer live in the days of fleshly circumcision...perhaps by practice, but it has no religious benefit at all.

Joe

[joel]

Lastly, I fail to see your logic in creating a rule that quoting Paul is not sufficient.

Joe, I was curious if you were using any scripture outside of Paul to discuss this important issue. And, you gave me John's Revelation. Thanks, it helps me understand your viewpoint.

To me, as a Gentile of the nations, Paul's letters are of the highest order of importance.

He discusses, in detail, in his Romans letter the differences between the Jew and the Gentile. I was inquiring of you if you were aware of other (non-Pauline) scriptures which would help us in this discussion.

I will remain of the opinion that God still has a purpose for the nation of Israel that only that nation, and no other, can realize. Thanks for trying to help me see it as you do, but, I must insist that this is not a crystal clear issue as you ascribed.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Israel is............the twelve tribed nation that was chosen by God that were of the 12 sons of Jacob, who had his name changed to Israel. The family, descending from Jacob, is the subject of the history recorded in the books known as the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi.

The family of Jacob, through the son Judah, is the kindred in the flesh of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

Who might you say they are?

Joel
Hey there Joel, :yo:

You accurately stated the definition of carnal Israel. But is that the only way it is used in the Bible? I don't think so. The Bible is a spiritual book, and we are taught by God to understand it that way. For example, when Jesus taught Nicodemus about the kingdom of God, Nicodemus couldn't understand Him because he interpreted "born again" as being literally "born" from a woman a second time. Jesus chastised Him, and asked "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" (John 3:12) Nicodemus had a carnal understanding of the kingdom of God.

A similar misunderstanding happened earlier in John 2 when Jesus said "destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up." The Pharisees could not understand because they interpreted his words literally. Jesus had to constantly correct this error in His disciples. For example, when He said that Lazarus was "sleeping" His dense disciples said "Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well" falsely understanding His words literally. The same thing happened when he offered living water of the Spirit to the woman at the well, and she falsely interpreted his words literally and asked where was His bucket! And again when He warned His disciples "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees" (Matt 16:6) and they were clueless becasue they thougth He was talking about literal bread.

The Bible is a spiritual book, and must be interpret spiritually, the way God intended.


With this in mind, let us return to the question of the meaning of "Israel" in the New Testament. Everyone agrees that the word itself usually denotes carnal Israel that is the physical continuation of the "children of promise" that began with Isaac. But what does the New Testament tell us about the spiritual meaning of Israel? The answer seems clear. Paul explicitly declares that "as Isaac was" so Christians "are the children of promise" (Gal 4:28). Likewise, the Bible explicitly states that Christians "are the Circumcision" where the word "Circumcision" is a title of Israel. There are many passages that prove this point. Joe (TheForgiven) has posted many. But we don't rely on mere "proof texts" when asking what the New Testament means when speaking of "Israel" or "circumcision" or "Jerusalem" in the spiritual sense. We understand the spiritual meaning of those terms when we understand the overal Gospel message of the whole Bible. Yes, it is true that there was a literal carnal origin of the idea of "Israel" but that was only the SHADOW of the greater REALITY. The carnal idea of physical descent is explicitly refuted by God Himself throught the Apostle Paul in Romans 9:6-8:
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.
God Almighty explicitly declares that carnal Israel - defined as "the twelve tribed nation that was chosen by God that were of the 12 sons of Jacob" - are NOT "the children of promise." Only those who believe in Christ are counted as seed. The confusion with carnal Israel comes from forgetting that Israel is defined by FAITH to the COVENANT. If you reject the covenant, you are not counted as "Israel" by God.

Now we can understand the Biblical meaning of "Israel." You focused on physical descent. That contradicts the Bible. The Bible focuses on covenant relationship. The Old Covenant defined carnal Israel. The New Covenant defines the New Israel, the Church of God, the New Jerusalem.

A Jew who denies Christ is not counted as "seed of Abraham" and hence, not "counted" as "Israel."

Here's the logic:

Q: What is the "promise"?
A: CHRIST

Q: Who are the "children of promise"
A: CHRISTIANS

Insistence on the carnal definition of Israel as the one and only definition directly contradicts God's statement that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." God made the New Covenant (which defines Christians) with Israel. That is when the Old Israel died, and was resurrected as the New Israel, just as the Old Jerusalem died and was resurrected as the New Jerusalem.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I will remain of the opinion that God still has a purpose for the nation of Israel that only that nation, and no other, can realize. Thanks for trying to help me see it as you do, but, I must insist that this is not a crystal clear issue as you ascribed.

Joel
Hey Joel,

I just wanted to mention that I respect your position and I hope that my adherence to my understanding does not cause you to think otherwise. It's wonderful to have you here on this forum. You really help up dig deep to understand why we believe what we believe.

God bless you bro!

Richard

[alec cotton]

Ladies and gentlemen. Brothers and sisters in Christ.
I don't want to muddy the waters but I do feel a great
compulsion to express a personal view. I think that most will agree that the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet was the event of 70 AD. The angel said to Daniel ,'From the abomination of desolation there will be two thousand three hundred days(years),then the sanctuary will be cleansed .'The high priest went into the holy of holies once a year with blood. Jesus the high priest of our profession went into the holy of holies (the bosom of the father ) and when he returns the sanctuary will be cleansed.. Allow me at this point to head off an objection that 'of that time knows no man not even the Son.' His second coming is not the final nor the day of judgement.' After a thousand years the devil will be loosed for an indeterminate time to deceive the nations .'Then he comes with clouds 'and every eye shall see him,and those who pierced him.'
My sincerest wish is that you will all find joy,peace and inspiration in the written word..
Alec

[TheForgiven]

Joe, I was curious if you were using any scripture outside of Paul to discuss this important issue. And, you gave me John's Revelation. Thanks, it helps me understand your viewpoint.

To me, as a Gentile of the nations, Paul's letters are of the highest order of importance.

He discusses, in detail, in his Romans letter the differences between the Jew and the Gentile. I was inquiring of you if you were aware of other (non-Pauline) scriptures which would help us in this discussion.

I will remain of the opinion that God still has a purpose for the nation of Israel that only that nation, and no other, can realize. Thanks for trying to help me see it as you do, but, I must insist that this is not a crystal clear issue as you ascribed.

Joel

But doesn't this presuppose that Israel of the flesh has not fulfilled its purpose?

Joe

[joel]

I just wanted to mention that I respect your position and I hope that my adherence to my understanding does not cause you to think otherwise. It's wonderful to have you here on this forum. You really help up dig deep to understand why we believe what we believe.


Richard, it is because of your respectful attitude that you allow such freedom of expression on your forum. I do not expect you, nor anyone else, to embrace anything I may say unless it agrees with scripture, and I know that you feel the same.

Not only it is important that we "dig deep", but, it is also important to limit our discussions to those things that can be identified in scripture, and then, attempt to come into a unity with the mind of the spirit about them.

With this in mind, I would ask you to look again at the expression "carnal Israel".

I cannot locate this expression anywhere in what is written, and I wonder if I may have overlooked a verse, or two? Can you help me?

The word, carnal, would be aligned with the Greek word, sarkikos. Other words associated with it are sarkinos, and sarx.

My related question is; if it cannot be located in scripture, should we use it? Is there a better phrase in the English to convey what Paul , and the other writers, were saying?

Here is what I find;

"...I am carnal, sold under sin..." Rom. 7:14,
"...the carnal mind....." Rom. 8:7,
"....carnal things...." Rom. 15:27,
"...as unto carnal..." I Co. 3:1,
"...for ye are yet carnal...."I Co. 3:3,
"...divisions...carnal....."I Co. 3:3,
"... are ye not carnal...."I Co 3:4,
"...reap your carnal things....." I Co 9:11,
"....weapons of our warfare...not carnal" II Co 10:4
"....law of a carnal commandment...." Heb 7:16,
"....carnal ordinances......"Heb 9:10
"....fleshly lusts.........." I Pet 2:11.

This is the same kind of problem that I have with other expressions that cannot be aligned with scripture which we end up using as if they were........an example which we have previously discussed is.......sin nature. Nowhere in scripture can we locate such an expression, and yet, many have adopted it as if it were. And when it used as scripture, there can be no clear communication concerning it.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Hello brother Joel,

I hope you don't mind me responding to your comment about "Carnal Israel".

Granted the scriptures do not literally speak of "Carnal" Israel. However, there are verses which imply, and demand that we discern the difference.

"Carnal" Israel has to do with being considered Israel based on birth right. In the old days (First Covenant) Israel was based on flesh. This served as one specific New Testament understanding, that the blood-line was important to lead us to Christ. Christ was the fulfillment of all Jews, and it's through HIM that souls are saved. Since that time, "Adoption" as sons occurs only through Christ. That being said, why would it matter if I were born an Israelite according to the flesh, or a Gentile according to the flesh? Well that's just it; it doesn't matter where you are born. For God shows no partiality or favoritism based on our nationality; He loves and abides in all who come to him, regardless of ethnicity, or blood-line.

With this simple understanding, how then can anyone believe that God has a special purpose set aside for one nation? That's the same as saying that God deals with mankind based on our fleshly descent. But we know that is not true at all, at least not anymore.

What then was the purpose of the Israelites? We've already established that this was important because the Messiah would be born through their birth-line. But Paul mentions something of this matter, of what I'm speaking. He states that God condemned the Jews in order to proclaim His name to the Gentiles. This was to make the Jews jealous. The inhabited nations outside of Israel were shown the light and the salvation of God. Paul's goal then was to bring in as many Gentiles as possible, in the hopes of stirring his fellow kinsmen according to the flesh, in order to "saving some of them". Would I be in error in stating that thousands of Jews were IN FACT saved as a result of this jealousy? Many Futurist would argue against this, because they don't see God's rejection of the Jews on a personal level; they view it by God permitting the temple to be destroyed. And since the temple hasn't existed for more than 2000 years, God must still be rejecting them.

[B]That is a false understanding of the scriptures. If their temple is not important, how much less the city which was sanctified by the temple? After all, what made Israel? The temple, or the city? Not the city, but the temple and its people, for all things are sanctified by the temple of God. The temple is not sanctified by the city, or anything for that matter. So you see? If the temple isn't important (and it's not), then neither is the city.

WE, however, do understand that the true temple of God is our body. Therefore, what is more important to you? A people whom you believe will receive a "special purpose"? Or those who have received salvation? I'm certain you know the answer to that.

So it's like this.

Jews formed a relationship with God. God shows his displeasure with them for many centuries. Finally, when the Messiah was born through their blood-line, the mission of forgiveness and the establishment of God's Kingdom starts in Jerusalem....."For salvation is of the Jews.." Jesus speaks to the woman at the well and codifies my statement. The Samaritan lady states, "We know you Jews say that we must travel to Jerusalem to worship God.."

Now what was Christ's response? He says, "Woman, a time is coming, AND NOW IS, when you shall neither travel to Jerusalem nor this mountain to worship God. God is Spirit, and He seeks for those who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth..."

Notice what else He says:

"You know not what you worship, but we [Jews] do....for SALVATION IS OF THE JEWS...."

Did you get that? Salvation is of the Jews, and it was ONLY THROUGH the Jews that salvation was proclaimed throughout the inhabited earth.

Now, lets wrap this up. We know that God chose the Israelites because they represented slavery. He sets them free to proclaim His grace, not only them, but to all nations. He gave them a land and a Kingdom to uphold. But that Kingdom fell when they violated the covenant. After several centuries of rebuke and repentance, the Messiah comes. The Kingdom is built and established on the oracles of Jesus. Then comes the end of the Jewish temple and city, in accordance with the flesh. Since that time, the Kingdom of Christ WHICH IS OF THE JEWS, has established itself throughout the entire world. Its borders extend far beyond the Jordan and has engulfed the entire world (figuratively speaking). Only from her are nations healed with the power of the "living waters", and are nations provided "leaves" from beautiful trees to hide us from the heat. And the temple of God dwells among men, with the light of God in our hearts, and our temples outshine any man made temple...if the Spirit of God dwells in you.

Now then, ask yourself that question once again. Does God have a special plan for Israel?

If you say yes, then you've missed the entire point of this post. What more awesome wonders need to be fulfilled than what they've already received? For from them are the Patriarchs, the covenant, the temple service, the pictures (Figures) of the heavenly Jerusalem, and most importantly, the Messiah. Thanks to their wonders, through God of course, the world has enjoyed centuries of saved souls, and the Kingdom continues to expand from one nation, to the next. Instead of localized temple in the middle east, we have one gigantic temple which nearly engulfs the earth.

I for one am very pleased at what He's accomplished through man. What an awesome and clever God we have, who uses nations to proclaims His awesome power and wonders, and more importantly, His grace.

God's grace be with you all.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, it is because of your respectful attitude that you allow such freedom of expression on your forum. I do not expect you, nor anyone else, to embrace anything I may say unless it agrees with scripture, and I know that you feel the same.

Not only it is important that we "dig deep", but, it is also important to limit our discussions to those things that can be identified in scripture, and then, attempt to come into a unity with the mind of the spirit about them.

With this in mind, I would ask you to look again at the expression "carnal Israel".

I cannot locate this expression anywhere in what is written, and I wonder if I may have overlooked a verse, or two? Can you help me?

The word, carnal, would be aligned with the Greek word, sarkikos. Other words associated with it are sarkinos, and sarx.

My related question is; if it cannot be located in scripture, should we use it? Is there a better phrase in the English to convey what Paul , and the other writers, were saying?

Here is what I find;

"...I am carnal, sold under sin..." Rom. 7:14,
"...the carnal mind....." Rom. 8:7,
"....carnal things...." Rom. 15:27,
"...as unto carnal..." I Co. 3:1,
"...for ye are yet carnal...."I Co. 3:3,
"...divisions...carnal....."I Co. 3:3,
"... are ye not carnal...."I Co 3:4,
"...reap your carnal things....." I Co 9:11,
"....weapons of our warfare...not carnal" II Co 10:4
"....law of a carnal commandment...." Heb 7:16,
"....carnal ordinances......"Heb 9:10
"....fleshly lusts.........." I Pet 2:11.

This is the same kind of problem that I have with other expressions that cannot be aligned with scripture which we end up using as if they were........an example which we have previously discussed is.......sin nature. Nowhere in scripture can we locate such an expression, and yet, many have adopted it as if it were. And when it used as scripture, there can be no clear communication concerning it.

Joel
Excellent questions Joel.

I agree that we should limit our discussion to "those things that can be identified in scripture" - but that doesn't mean the specific words identifying those things must be found in the Bible. For example, the words Trinity, Incarnation, Rapture and most notably "Bible" itself, are not found as such in the Bible. But the concepts are found there, and that is the important thing.

And that's the problem with "sin nature." As far as I can tell, that concept does not correspond to anything we find in the Bible. We find "sin" and we find "nature" but the Bible does not teach that we have a "sin nature." Some people claim that "flesh" means "sin nature" and the NIV even translates it that way on occasion. But we know that is wrong because Adam and Eve were "flesh" before they sinned, and Jesus Himself was the Word that became flesh, yet without sin. So we know with certainty that "sin nature" is not to be identified with "flesh" and it is my contention that there is nothing in the Bible that could be identified as "sin nature." But that's not because we don't find the phrase "sin nature" - its because the concept itself is not taught.


The situation is different with the idea of "carnal Israel." I believe this is just another way of refering to what the Bible calls "Israel according to the flesh" or in Greek "Israel kata sarka."
1 Cor 10:18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

The same phrase "kata sarka" is found in Paul's comparison of carnal versus heavenly (spiritual) Jerusalem:
Galatians 4:23-31 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh (kata sarka); but he of the freewoman was by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he that was born after the flesh (kata sarka) persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. Who are the Christians? Children of the promise. Who are the "children of the flesh"? Unbelieving Jews who were in bondage to the first covenant in literal carnal Jeruslam. Christians live in the New Jerusalem "from above" which is the Christian Church. This perfectly cohere's with Paul's explanation in Romans 9:
Romans 9:6-8 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. The "children of the flesh" in Romans 9 are the same as the "children of the flesh" in Galatians 4 which are explicitly defined as the unbelieving Jews still in bondage of the first covenant. They are the "children of the bondwoman" that were born "after the flesh" (kata sarka). This is what I mean by the "shorthand" phrase "carnal Israel." It refers to the physical descedants of Jacob that rejected the New Covenant and the Messiah.


Finally, it is important to note that "after the flesh" (kata sarka) is used in parallel with "carnal" (sarkikos) in 2 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 10:3-4 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh (kata sarka): 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal (sarkikos), but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds)It seems to me that the phrase "carnal Israel" identifies a well-defined and very important concept taught in the Bible.

Richard

[basilfo]

Jer 31:31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Questions for those who believe modern, ethnic, Christ-rejecting Jews are "God's chosen people" and continue to have covenantal significance as they once did under any of the covenants prior to Christ's New Covenant:

1. Under the NC referred to in verse 33, do "Jews" today have 'My law' in their minds, and written in their hearts?

2. Without Christ, has God forgiven their iniquity and remembered their sin no more? How does that work?

3. God calls those under this New Covenant (established in Christ's blood explained by Jesus at the Last Supper) "My people". Some say Christ-rejecting ethnic Jews are "God's people". Does God maintain 2 chosen people? Where is that explained in Scripture?

Romans 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

The remnant Paul identifies in Rom 11 are likened to those who did not bend the knee to Baal. They were obedient to God. Paul also identified that remnant to exist "at this present time" (Paul's time). IMO, this shows that God did not cast away those who are His according to the election of grace. But of course, that cannot be done outside of Christ. Neither can they (or anyone who rejects Christ) be "His people" nor "God's chosen people" after Christ.

As has been posted, the NT is loaded with passages explaining that Jewish heritage doesn't cut it after Christ. John the Baptist didn't even give the Jewish leaders a chance to play the heritage card in Matt 3. It was a whole new ballgame.

To sum it up, IMO, "God's chosen people" are those with whom God has established a covenant. Under the New Covenant (which is the only one in place right now), that can only be those who follow Christ and have accepted His perfect sacrifice for payment of their sins. God does not revert to the shadow once the reality has been revealed, therefore I don't see the significance of modern day Israel in God's eyes.

Peace to you,
Dave

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ladies and gentlemen. Brothers and sisters in Christ.
I don't want to muddy the waters but I do feel a great
compulsion to express a personal view. I think that most will agree that the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet was the event of 70 AD. The angel said to Daniel ,'From the abomination of desolation there will be two thousand three hundred days(years),then the sanctuary will be cleansed .'The high priest went into the holy of holies once a year with blood. Jesus the high priest of our profession went into the holy of holies (the bosom of the father ) and when he returns the sanctuary will be cleansed.. Allow me at this point to head off an objection that 'of that time knows no man not even the Son.' His second coming is not the final nor the day of judgement.' After a thousand years the devil will be loosed for an indeterminate time to deceive the nations .'Then he comes with clouds 'and every eye shall see him,and those who pierced him.'
My sincerest wish is that you will all find joy,peace and inspiration in the written word..
Alec
Hi Alec,


Thanks for sharing that view. But I have some reservations. You quoted Daniel 8:14 as saying 'From the abomination of desolation there will be two thousand three hundred days(years),then the sanctuary will be cleansed.' What translation were you using? The KJV has it this way:
Daniel 8:13-14 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.
This passage has many possible interpretations, and nothing seems certain. The Seventh Day Adventists interpreted it to be 2300 years like you but concluded that it ended in 1844. Other scholars believe it is speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes and 167 BC. And other scholars see it as 2300 half days or 1150 full days, which approximates the 1260 days of Revelation and so they think it refers to the 3.5 years of destruction that culminated the "time fo the Gentiles" when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. This is confirmed by the mention of the sanctuary being "trodden under foot" much like the "outer court" and the "holy city" being trodden under foot by the Gentiles in Rev 11:1-2. This seems to be the best interpretation, but I am not certain. John Walvoord warns that this is a very difficult passage, and cites Montgomery as stating that verses 8:11-12 constitute "the most difficult short passage in the book." (page 186, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation by John Walvoord).


Another issue that must be addressed is the word translated as "cleansed." That word is tzadak which is defined as follows:
צדק tsadaq {tsaw-dak'} a primitive root; TWOT - 1879; v AV - justify 23, righteous 10, just 3, justice 2, cleansed 1, clear ourselves 1, righteousness 1; 41 1) to be just, be righteous 1a) (Qal) 1a1) to have a just cause, be in the right 1a2) to be justified 1a3) to be just (of God) 1a4) to be just, be righteous (in conduct and character) 1b) (Niphal) to be put or made right, be justified 1c) (Piel) justify, make to appear righteous, make someone righteous 1d) (Hiphil) 1d1) to do or bring justice (in administering law) 1d2) to declare righteous, justify 1d3) to justify, vindicate the cause of, save 1d4) to make righteous, turn to righteousness 1e) (Hithpael) to justify oneself
"Tzadak" is translated as "cleansed" only in Daniel 8:14. The much more common meaning is "justified" or "proven correct." That makes me wonder if it is not saying that the 70 AD destruction of the carnal Temple "justified" or proved correct the coming of the TRUE TEMPLE, the spiritual Temple of the Body of Christ. I'm not sure ... but it's an interesting thought.

I really can't find anything to make me think that it is refering to a still future return of Christ to "cleanse" the Temple. I'm not sure what Temple you are refering to, or what other verse you have that will clearly support this interpretation.

I look forward to you answers.

Richard

[joel]

But doesn't this presuppose that Israel of the flesh has not fulfilled its purpose?

Joe

Joe,......that may be the most important question you have asked.

Has Israel fulfilled its purpose?

You may say, "Yes".
The purpose of Israel has been fulfilled.

You may say that not only has it been fulfilled, but, according to those who say that Israel's destiny is finished, it is brought to a conclusion.

This is a very important issue. If Israel, according to the flesh, is of the past, and no longer a part of God's plan, then, we, who are of the "spirit" are the reality of that which is of the "flesh".

Either what you say is correct.........or,......it is not.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Joe,......that may be the most important question you have asked.


Has Israel fulfilled its purpose?

You may say, "Yes".
The purpose of Israel has been fulfilled.

You may say that not only has it been fulfilled, but, according to those who say that Israel's destiny is finished, it is brought to a conclusion.

This is a very important issue. If Israel, according to the flesh, is of the past, and no longer a part of God's plan, then, we, who are of the "spirit" are the reality of that which is of the "flesh".

Either what you say is correct.........or,......it is not.

Joel

I'll take it a step further and state that if "Flesh" was important for God's chosen people (and at one time it was until Christ came), then it would be important now.

I cannot believe that God would condemn Jews for more than 2500 years of history simply to bring in Gentiles. I believe He did that in the first century because He was building a Kingdom. Once the Kingdom was ready to take charge of the world (spiritually that is), then the practices of the "Shadow" was no longer needed.

I see a lot of pictures of the Jews, which are a statement or "type" for the Church.

1. Physical circumcision = pictures spiritual circumcision

2. Animal sacrifices = pictures the sacrifice of Christ

3. Fasting = mourning when we sin

4. new moon = new Churches being built giving fresh light to the world (Not buildings)

5. Physical temple = our bodies where abides the resting Spirit of God; a place of rest

6. Tithes = gifts of love to those in need (Not for church house adornment)

7. Sabbath day = Age of grace and not works (We are in the age of Grace)

There are many more, but these are the basics. I'm convinced that all the Jewish practices were a spiritual message for the Church, which many did not understand then, nor even now.

I'm interested in your opinions brother Joel. And I thank you for reading / responding to mine. ;)

Joe

[joel]

I cannot believe that God would condemn Jews for more than 2500 years of history simply to bring in Gentiles. I believe He did that in the first century because He was building a Kingdom. Once the Kingdom was ready to take charge of the world (spiritually that is), then the practices of the "Shadow" was no longer needed.

(something happened to this section of the post.....I meant for all of my remarks to be set off in blue, Oh well...........again, my human limitations are apparent....Joel)
God has dealt with the Jews, as Israel, for His distinct purposes. Paul discusses the current condition of Israel in chapters 9, 10 & 11 of his Romans letter. They have been temporarily set aside until the "fulness" (pleroma) of the Gentiles has come in.
Yes, He is bringing in His kingdom, which we agree upon. Where we continue to have different viewpoints is the nature of the kingdom, the participants, the scope.......I see Israel as playing a part, you do not.
I see a lot of pictures of the Jews, which are a statement or "type" for the Church.
We are in agreement that what God teaches through Israel applies to spiritual truths for us as counterparts.

1. Physical circumcision = pictures spiritual circumcision
[COLOR="Blue"]Physical circumcision ("periptome") is applicable only to the Jew, individually,and to the nation, Israel, as a sign of the covenant which he made with Abraham. This covenant is "everlasting" (which I have given my view in other threads that it "age enduring".
Spiritual circumcision is that which we may enjoy now because of our death with Christ, when He cut away the flesh of the old humanity. We enjoy the truth of it through the Lord's Supper and that of the New Covenant which is applicable to us as long as we remain in these bodies of flesh.
However, there is to come a time when we will no longer be in these bodies of flesh as taught by Paul in Corinthians, and Thessalonians.
The cutting of a New Covenant will occur between God and the house of Israel. Those who view this as meaning the New Covenant as it applies to the church have mixed the two in such a way that it supposedly no longer applies to the house of Israel in the future.
This is the continuing disagreement that we have concerning these matters.
I see the church, which His body, fulfilling a celestial calling, while the nation, Israel, fulfills a terrestrial. They, Israel, as Paul explains in Romans 9,10 & 11, have been temporarily set aside as a fulfillment of certain prophecies. The difference that we hold is in the terms, "temporary", and "permanent". To me, their condition is "temporary". To you, it seems, it is "permanent".

2. Animal sacrifices = pictures the sacrifice of Christ

3. Fasting = mourning when we sin

4. new moon = new Churches being built giving fresh light to the world (Not buildings)

5. Physical temple = our bodies where abides the resting Spirit of God; a place of rest

6. Tithes = gifts of love to those in need (Not for church house adornment)

7. Sabbath day = Age of grace and not works (We are in the age of Grace)

There are many more, but these are the basics. I'm convinced that all the Jewish practices were a spiritual message for the Church, which many did not understand then, nor even now.
[COLOR="Blue"]Yes, Joe, there is no doubt that much of which applied to Israel is a "shadow" of spiritual reality that apples to us. It is my continued belief, however, that those things of old also are a shadow to spiritual realities that will apply to them as well, as a nation.
I'm interested in your opinions brother Joel. And I thank you for reading / responding to mine.
Thanks, Joe. Your opinions are of interest to me as well, as are Richard's , Rose's and the others who post here in quest of spiritual truth.
Joel


Thanks for your polite consideration. The spirit of unity pervades this board, and is a blessing to us all. Joel

[joel]

Hey Joel,

I just wanted to mention that I respect your position and I hope that my adherence to my understanding does not cause you to think otherwise. It's wonderful to have you here on this forum. You really help up dig deep to understand why we believe what we believe.

God bless you bro!

Richard


My respect for you and for your work continues.

Digging deep is what we miners do, right?

Your continued opened mindedness is a catalyst for seeking that which God has for us.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My respect for you and for your work continues.

Digging deep is what we miners do, right?

Your continued opened mindedness is a catalyst for seeking that which God has for us.

Joel
Yes indeed Joel, let's continue being "miners" for the "heart of gold" we know we will find in God's Word.

And on that note .... do you have any comments on my previous post to you, in which I explained what I meant by "carnal Israel"? (That's post #38 in this thread.)

Richard

[joel]

do you have any comments on my previous post to you, in which I explained what I meant by "carnal Israel"? (That's post #38 in this thread.)


I am giving this some thought......I do not want us to get entangled again as we have in the past concerning the fate of Israel.....it is important to your beliefs, and I respect your views.
Obviously, it is important to my viewpoint as well.......and we have had more divergence on this matter than convergence.

I am praying that I may express accurately what I see, knowing that, due to past discussions, we have not the same view(s) on certain matters.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am giving this some thought......I do not want us to get entangled again as we have in the past concerning the fate of Israel.....it is important to your beliefs, and I respect your views.
Obviously, it is important to my viewpoint as well.......and we have had more divergence on this matter than convergence.

I am praying that I may express accurately what I see, knowing that, due to past discussions, we have not the same view(s) on certain matters.

Joel
OK - I understand. We certainly have discussed this alot. So don't feel pressured to answer that post right now. There are plenty of other things to discuss. Perhaps there is some other aspect of Scripture that will indirectly lead to a clarification of the question about a future earthly Davidic Kingdom of Israel.

Richard

[basilfo]

Hey guys,
Still looking for some feedback (any comments on post #39 above?) on how Jews today or Israel today can be a continuation and still be considered "God's chosen". I see no covenantal parallels between them and His people and/or His Holy City prior to Christ. What the UN or people call themselves doesn't count - it is God's perspective that counts.

In addition, I see much NT support for 'My people' being only those who receive Christ (e.g. olive tree branches of Rom 11, Jer 31, Is 11, 1 Pet 2:9, Matt 21:43etc).

I keep going back to this because I believe the question of whether national Israel and ethnic Jews today are significant under the New Covenant is key to proper understanding of eschatology. The answer will drive many, many other issues we discuss.

Peace to you,
Dave

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey guys,
Still looking for some feedback (any comments on post #39 above?) on how Jews today or Israel today can be a continuation and still be considered "God's chosen". I see no covenantal parallels between them and His people and/or His Holy City prior to Christ. What the UN or people call themselves doesn't count - it is God's perspective that counts.

In addition, I see much NT support for 'My people' being only those who receive Christ (e.g. olive tree branches of Rom 11, Jer 31, Is 11, 1 Pet 2:9, Matt 21:43etc).

I keep going back to this because I believe the question of whether national Israel and ethnic Jews today are significant under the New Covenant is key to proper understanding of eschatology. The answer will drive many, many other issues we discuss.

Peace to you,
Dave
Hi Dave,


As I'm sure you know, I agree whole-heartedly with your understanding of those whom God identifies as "my people." I think the proof is overwhelming because the Bible explicitly declares that the prophecies of the OT were fulfilled by the Church in the NT. For example, you quoted Jeremiah 31:
Jer 31:31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

This is the DEFINING PROPHECY of the New Covenant of Christianity and Paul explicity stated that it was fulfilled in the Church:
2 Cor 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye [Christians] are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

It seems to me that the evidence is total, complete, overwhelming, and incontrovertible. God says absolutely nothing in the New Testament about unbelieving carnal Israel being "His people." On the contrary, He explicitly declares that they are the "children of the flesh" and are NOT the "children of God." This is further amplified and explicitly explained later in the same chapter:
Rom 9:24-25 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Thus we KNOW that God calls the Church - composed of Jews and Gentiles - "My People." It seems to me that this teaching is perfectly consistent throughout the New Testament. I know of nothing that indicates God calls "Israel of the flesh" His "people."

I would be very interested if anyone can provide a counter-argument to these verses.

Richard

[joel]

Jer 31:31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Questions for those who believe modern, ethnic, Christ-rejecting Jews are "God's chosen people" and continue to have covenantal significance as they once did under any of the covenants prior to Christ's New Covenant:

1. Under the NC referred to in verse 33, do "Jews" today have 'My law' in their minds, and written in their hearts?
No. And they will remain in their current state "Not my people" until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Is it your belief that there are those, today, that have the law written in the hearts, and in their minds in the way Jeremiah described?
2. Without Christ, has God forgiven their iniquity and remembered their sin no more? How does that work?
They remain in the state of discomfiture as described by Paul in Romans 9,10 &11. Except that for the remnant of the election of grace, there are none of Israel who are in right standing with God. But, because of the remnant, there is still, until this day and during this day, a representative remnant just as in the days of Isaiah, and Jeremiah.

3. God calls those under this New Covenant (established in Christ's blood explained by Jesus at the Last Supper) "My people". Some say Christ-rejecting ethnic Jews are "God's people". Does God maintain 2 chosen people? Where is that explained in Scripture?
No, He does not have two parallel groups competing with each other at the same time. They, Israel, were His chosen people. They, as a people, except for the remnant, rejected His blessings. Does their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Paul has concluded and proved, Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin: (Romans 3:9). And, this being so, all who are to be counted righteous need to be "under the blood". We, who are Gentiles, are afforded the grace to be under the blood and have the benefits of such standing which are part of the New Covenant. But, we are not the house of Israel, nor are we of the house of Judah, which is promised through Jeremiah will be the recipients of the New Covenant promises when that day comes.

Romans 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, [of] the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"? 4 But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

The remnant Paul identifies in Rom 11 are likened to those who did not bend the knee to Baal. They were obedient to God. Paul also identified that remnant to exist "at this present time" (Paul's time). IMO, this shows that God did not cast away those who are His according to the election of grace. But of course, that cannot be done outside of Christ. Neither can they (or anyone who rejects Christ) be "His people" nor "God's chosen people" after Christ.
Paul is speaking of the remnant of Israel. Without them, the entire people would be cast away permanently. It is because of the remnant that this cannot be so.
As has been posted, the NT is loaded with passages explaining that Jewish heritage doesn't cut it after Christ. John the Baptist didn't even give the Jewish leaders a chance to play the heritage card in Matt 3. It was a whole new ballgame.

To sum it up, IMO, "God's chosen people" are those with whom God has established a covenant. Under the New Covenant (which is the only one in place right now), that can only be those who follow Christ and have accepted His perfect sacrifice for payment of their sins. God does not revert to the shadow once the reality has been revealed, therefore I don't see the significance of modern day Israel in God's eyes.
This view has been stated by you, and others, time and time again. But, what if you are mistaken? It is God Who will be justified in His sayings..........His covenantal relationship with Israel extends beyond the events leading up and including the first century. He will be proven faithful in spite of their unbelief as a people.

The New Covenant of which Jeremiah speaks will be with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah. How can they be someone else other than what they have always been?

And, by the way, who has claimed that "modern day Israel" on this site is representative of the "chosen of God"?

No one knows, nor can know, when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in. This must be future event. Is there any way that you can say that the fulness of the Gentiles has already come in?

Joel

Peace to you,
Dave

(And, peace to you, as well. But, Dave, if there is no meaning at all in what is transpiring in the Middle East, concerning Israel, and its opponents, what does it matter anyway?)

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

(And, peace to you, as well. But, Dave, if there is no meaning at all in what is transpiring in the Middle East, concerning Israel, and its opponents, what does it matter anyway?)

Joel
I think there might be something very significant going on in the modern secular state of Israel, but I doubt that it relates to any of the Biblical prophecies concerning the Biblical theocratic nation of Israel that was totally annihilated in the events surrounding 70 AD. The modern secular state of "Israel" has no Temple, no valid Priests with known genealogies, no royal Throne for a "king" to sit upon, etc., etc., etc.. And there is no way for them to get any of that back without a DIRECT intervention by God in the sense of Him sending forth a TRUE PROPHET - but then what should we expect? That a True Prophet of God is going to tell them to reinstitute Judaism? I think not ... it seems to me that any True Prophet of God is going to declare the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has nothing to do with carnal Temples and earthly kingdoms and bloody sacrifices.

Again, it seems to me that I would need to invent a mountain of ideas not plainly taught in Scripture if I were to believe that the modern secular state of "Israel" has anything to do with Biblical prophecies concerning Bibilical Israel.

Joel - where should I start in the New Testament to establish the doctrine of a future earthly theocratic Kingdom of Israel?

Richard

[joel]

Joel - where should I start in the New Testament to establish the doctrine of a future earthly theocratic Kingdom of Israel?

Richard


Richard, I have never focused on such a teaching, nor have I ever taught others on such matters.

It is mainly through conversations with internet companions over the past 5 or so years that so many conversations focus on the kingdom issues of the earth.

My focus has been, and will continue to be, the emphasis that Paul makes on what I consider to be the calling of the body of Christ, the church, as it applies to the heavenly realms. I have stated long ago, and continue to hold fast the profession that Paul, as the apostle to the nations, is responsible to call out, and prepare the members of the body.

I have stated before on other posts, and still hold the position, that Israel, has been temporarily set aside as the body is being completed. But, that they will be called forth to complete their calling on the earth.

If you want me to direct the discussion(s) to what is appropriate for the preparation of the body, I would focus on Paul's letters, and the focus would be in a step by step process beginning with his letter to the Romans.

Peter, on the otherhand, as the apostle to the circumcision, James, and John are the focal preparation letters to the circumcision.

Paul, as the apostle to the nations, has presented the gospel of the uncircumcision, and, I, being a Gentile, am inclined to separate those things applicable to me, and those things which I believe are applicable to Israel, which includes the terrestrial kingdom.

I do not believe that the body of Christ is ....."the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a perculiar people...." (I Peter 2:9) It is my continued belief that Peter was speaking to the Israelites who will be, some time in the future, called out of the nations to prepare for the administration of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

The church may try as hard it has for 2,000 years to be what Peter describes, but it cannot be that if it was not meant to be.......The failure to differentiate on these matters is, in my opinion, the cause of deplorable condition of dis-unity that pervades the outward, Christian church. It is ludicrous to think that the church can come into a unity on matters that are essentially not theirs to bring about.

The spiritual leaders are responsible for this......just as the priests of Israel, and the administrative leaders were responsible, in the end analysis, of the fallen state of Isreal.

Only Jesus can make it right. And, He will. Both as the Lord, on earth, administering the Kingdom through the New Covenant people, Israel, and, bringing all into subjection through the body of Christ as He administers the Kingdom of God in the heavenly realms.

If you want to talk about that........I would be more than pleased to do so. But I am limited to speak about the earthly reign of Israel as I have not dedicated my learning to that topic, but leave it to others who will be a part of that calling, at the proper time.

Joel

[basilfo]

I do not believe that the body of Christ is ....."the chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a perculiar people...." (I Peter 2:9) It is my continued belief that Peter was speaking to the Israelites who will be, some time in the future, called out of the nations to prepare for the administration of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth.

1 Peter 2:1 Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, 2 as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord [is] gracious. 4 Coming to Him [as to] a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God [and] precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." 7 Therefore, to you who believe, [He is] precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone," 8 and "A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. 9 But you [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Hi Joel,
Thanks for your comments. However, I can't agree that Peter was speaking of Jews in v. 9. If you read the context the red 'you' is Christians, the blue is Jews.

Peace to you,
Dave

[joel]

1 Peter 1:1-25 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain



1 Peter 1
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
--------------------------------------------------------

Dave, let's go back to the first verse of the letter.

It is addressed to ......"the strangers scattered thoughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia...."
That is not me........nor is it you.........it is addressed to a certain people.

Is this not true?

Those to whom the letter is addressed are the "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, ..........." Is that you........Is that me....?
I think not. At least in my case, I do not see the letter that Peter sent to the strangers scattered throughout......as being sent to me directly......even though....as is true of all scripture.....that it may be helpful in understanding God's ways and plans,........it may not be directly applicable to me, as an individual.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

1 Peter 1:1-25 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

1 Peter 1
1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
--------------------------------------------------------

Dave, let's go back to the first verse of the letter.

It is addressed to ......"the strangers scattered thoughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia...."
That is not me........nor is it you.........it is addressed to a certain people.

Is this not true?

Those to whom the letter is addressed are the "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, ..........." Is that you........Is that me....?
I think not. At least in my case, I do not see the letter that Peter sent to the strangers scattered throughout......as being sent to me directly......even though....as is true of all scripture.....that it may be helpful in understanding God's ways and plans,........it may not be directly applicable to me, as an individual.

Joel
I don't get your point. None of the books of the NT were "addressed" to modern Christians. Romans was addressed to "saints" living in first century Rome, Luke was addressed to "Theophilos" ... Hebrews wasn't "addressed" to anyone. Are you saying that none of those books are "directly applicable" to you "as an individual"?

Richard

[basilfo]

Audience relevence is very important Joel. I agree Peter was writing to those in the 1st century. Whether there is application to us or not is not germain to the point of who "you" is in 1 Peter 2:9. It's either Jews (as you believe) or believers in Christ (as I believe). The century in which they live is a side issue.

I'll yield to your point that it is to 1st century folks. I ask again, Jews or Christians based on the context of 1 Peter 2? What would make you think it is Jews Peter is referring to?

Dave

[joel]

Dave and Richard,

I attempt to present the reason why there is a differentiation between certain letters in the NT, in my view, knowing that we are treading on very holy ground, and are not wrestling with each other, but, struggling to gain light and truth.

Peter holds a unique office.......he is the apostle of the circumcision.

Paul holds a unique office as well......he is the apostle of the uncircumcision.

Is there any difference? and, if so, what is the meaning of the difference?

We have no problem in seeing that Paul's letters are addressed to the called of Jesus Christ, called saints, during this era, which is the church, the body of Christ. His letters contain spiritual truths that are vital to the maturity of the members of the body.

Where we do have a problem is when we fail to distinguish the differences that are contained in the other letters and directly apply them to ourselves as if there were no need to "correctly cut the word of truth".

Circumcision is the sign of covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants. It is outward, in the flesh.

As we have discussed in other places, it is a "shadow" of the circumcision that is inward, in the heart, in the spirit.

Where circumcision ("periptome") is recognized, those who are circumcised, in the flesh, are in covenant with God.

It just so happens that "periptome" is not currently recognized as it once was, indicative of covenant relationship with God.

Paul's ministry was to "akrobustia", the "uncircumcision".

The two ministries cannot run parallel, at the same time.

At present, God is calling out people from all nations, with no consideration of ethnic backgound, nor of race, nor of sex, no of financial station, etc., etc. There are no distinctions at all.

Those of the "periptome" must discard that outward for the inward. Those of the "akrobustia" do not have the outward sign to discard, and are extended the blessing of the inward reality of circumcision to which the outward points.
To all that are called in this era, there is no distinction whatsoever. At this time, to make such a distinction between circumcision (outward), and those who don't have outward circumcision (those classified as "akrobustia") is a grave error.

We, the members of the body of Christ, are remaining in our fleshly (carnal) bodies. In such a state, we have the truths of Paul that show us that, in Christ, our old humanity has been crucified with Him. This is a form of circumcision that is spiritual, and inward. We are to learn more about it, and walk in the truths that Paul presents in his letters to us.

We learn from Paul that we will be blessed in a time to come with a spiritual body. This is in line with his revelation of the new creation which is a teaching unique to Paul.

Moreover, when that time comes, and that event occurs, there will remain certain outworkings of God's plan on the earth. It is at that time that the New Covenant between God and the house of Israel and the house of Judah will be ratified. They will be blessed with a new heart, and the laws of God will be written on the minds and on their hearts. The outward "periptome" which is unique to them, will be accompanied by an inward circumcision that they did not have while under the original covenant. They will "all" be saved, and witness His faithfulness and love which overwhelms their unbelief.

We, as members of Christ's body, are blessed with the provisions of the New Covenant that focus on His blood (the covering of our sins), and His body (the crucifixion of the old humanity and its implications as explained by Paul in his letters). We need to learn and teach every "jot and tittle" of these truths. In that way, we will be brought into a unity that currently escapes us.

We have not become Israel. And, Israel has not become us.

During this current era, anyone who is called is justified (made righteous) in the same way, jointly. But, this does not mean that Israel is eliminated. Israel must be set aside temporarily in order for God to complete His current work in Christ's body, the church, at which time He will resume His work through Israel when the Kingdom of Heaven is evident on the earth.

Aionios zoe will be a blessing to them in that day as part of their inheritance.
We, concurrently, will be blessed with life greater than "aionios zoe", in that we will be part of a new creation, our bodies will be immortal.

Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Dave and Richard,

I attempt to present the reason why there is a differentiation between certain letters in the NT, in my view, knowing that we are treading on very holy ground, and are not wrestling with each other, but, struggling to gain light and truth.

Amen Joel! :thumb:

We are helping each other wrestle with the Word to come to a better understanding of the Truth.



Peter holds a unique office.......he is the apostle of the circumcision.

Paul holds a unique office as well......he is the apostle of the uncircumcision.

I don't agree with the word "unique" in that description. Paul very specifically stated that he ministered to both Jews and Gentiles. It seems to me that the description of the two "offices" is just a general description of the primary groups the Peter and Paul ministered to. I don't see any reason to think it extends beyond that. Indeed, it was Peter who first preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, and it was Paul who did everything he could to "save some of them" (speaking of the Jews).



Is there any difference? and, if so, what is the meaning of the difference?

No ... I do not believe there is any difference whatsoever. Peter and Paul preached the ONE GOSPEL in perfect unity (after Paul rebuked Peter's error, that is!).



We have no problem in seeing that Paul's letters are addressed to the called of Jesus Christ, called saints, during this era, which is the church, the body of Christ. His letters contain spiritual truths that are vital to the maturity of the members of the body.

Where we do have a problem is when we fail to distinguish the differences that are contained in the other letters and directly apply them to ourselves as if there were no need to "correctly cut the word of truth".



What makes you think that God intends the phrase "correctly cut the word of truth" to be applied that way? I don't see anything in the context of 2 Tim 2:15 that suggests dividing up the NT into bits and pieces that do or don't "apply to me as an individual." Please believe me, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I just think that this is a primary source of confusion. All the letters of the NT were written TO first century Christians. It seems to me that we know the intended audience. To suggest that Peter's letters do not "apply" to Gentile Christians seems to be the root source of a host of divisive doctrines. And it seems to me that we have a clear and unambiguous proof that it is false, because Peter explicitly states that Paul's Epistles were written TO the same people as his own epistles:
2 Peter 3:14-18 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written UNTO YOU; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen. Note the very "Pauline" style ending, highlighted red. Peter and Paul preached ONE GOSPEL to ONE PEOPLE - the People of God redeemed by faith in Jesus Christ.



Circumcision is the sign of covenant that God made with Abraham and his descendants. It is outward, in the flesh.

As we have discussed in other places, it is a "shadow" of the circumcision that is inward, in the heart, in the spirit.

Where circumcision ("periptome") is recognized, those who are circumcised, in the flesh, are in covenant with God.

It just so happens that "periptome" is not currently recognized as it once was, indicative of covenant relationship with God.

Paul's ministry was to "akrobustia", the "uncircumcision".

The two ministries cannot run parallel, at the same time.



Again, I think it is a mistake to assert that there were two "ministries" and that they could not "run parallel, at the same time." We have plenty of Bibilical evidence that Peter and Paul each preached the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. The division of them into two "separate ministries" is not supported by the mere fact that their primary audiences were different. The fact that Paul called himself an "Apostle of the Gentiles" does not ecclipse his primary identity as an APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST, a title he shared with Peter:
1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Peter and Paul shared IDENTICAL ministries in the primary sense that they both were Apostles of Jesus Christ. And according to Peter, they wrote their letters to the SAME GROUP of believers.



At present, God is calling out people from all nations, with no consideration of ethnic backgound, nor of race, nor of sex, no of financial station, etc., etc. There are no distinctions at all.

Correct. And that was true when Peter wrote his epistles.



Those of the "periptome" must discard that outward for the inward. Those of the "akrobustia" do not have the outward sign to discard, and are extended the blessing of the inward reality of circumcision to which the outward points.

To all that are called in this era, there is no distinction whatsoever. At this time, to make such a distinction between circumcision (outward), and those who don't have outward circumcision (those classified as "akrobustia") is a grave error.

Agreed.



We, the members of the body of Christ, are remaining in our fleshly (carnal) bodies. In such a state, we have the truths of Paul that show us that, in Christ, our old humanity has been crucified with Him. This is a form of circumcision that is spiritual, and inward. We are to learn more about it, and walk in the truths that Paul presents in his letters to us.

We learn from Paul that we will be blessed in a time to come with a spiritual body. This is in line with his revelation of the new creation which is a teaching unique to Paul.

Moreover, when that time comes, and that event occurs, there will remain certain outworkings of God's plan on the earth. It is at that time that the New Covenant between God and the house of Israel and the house of Judah will be ratified. They will be blessed with a new heart, and the laws of God will be written on the minds and on their hearts. The outward "periptome" which is unique to them, will be accompanied by an inward circumcision that they did not have while under the original covenant. They will "all" be saved, and witness His faithfulness and love which overwhelms their unbelief.

I don't understand the source of these ideas. It seems to me that Christ "ratified" the New Covnanant with His blood on the cross. And Paul explicitly declares that the promise of the "new heart" with the Law written on it is fulfilled in the church. What is there in the Bible that suggests a second "carnal" fulfillment of those promises?

And what does "all" mean? Just a few that happen to be alive at some moment in the future? What about "all" the millions that died in unbelief before that time?



We, as members of Christ's body, are blessed with the provisions of the New Covenant that focus on His blood (the covering of our sins), and His body (the crucifixion of the old humanity and its implications as explained by Paul in his letters). We need to learn and teach every "jot and tittle" of these truths. In that way, we will be brought into a unity that currently escapes us.

A careful study is what we desire. But we never seem to find the foundation ... do you think there is a foundation that can be proven, or are we doomed to just talking in circles? We go around and around on these issues ... is there not a clear teaching in the Bible? Why can't we pin point the real root foundation of the Biblical teaching and discuss it until we know with certainty the reason for our differences and the support we each have from the Bible?



We have not become Israel. And, Israel has not become us.

This of course is a "root issue." I have long desired to discuss it with you. To really dig deep and discern the Biblical reality. It seems to me that the assertion that "we" are not "Israel" does not actually address the question. The question is "who is the Church?" The answer is declared in Scripture in many different ways, as I have explained many times, namely:

1) The Church began as the REMANT OF ISRAEL - every member of the Church was originally ISRAEL. Thus, the original Church was LITERALLY ISRAEL.

2) The Church is the Olive Tree which began with Abraham, the father of the Christian Faith.

3) The Church is composed of all the "children of promise" - unbelievers amongst carnal Israel are explicitly excluded as "not the children of God."

4) The Church is the "seed of Abraham" as explicitly declared by Paul.

5) The Church is the True Israel, the New Jerusalem, the "Mount Zion", the Temple of God, a "nation of priests," etc., etc., etc.,

And so on ... we've been discussing this for a long time, but for some reason we have never come to agreement on this question. The proof seem obvious. All Israel that BELIEVED IN GOD in the first century were CHRISTIANS. Thus, the CHURCH was the remnant of BELIEVERS in ISRAEL. The Bible declares that the unbelievers of carnal Israel were NOT the children of God and had NO PROMISES whatsoever because they were not the childrend of promise. The evidence appears to be overwhelming. I just do not understand why these Scriptures continue to go unanswered. You disagree with my understanding of them - that's fine. But why don't you explain how you understand them in light of your continued belief that carnal Israel has some "promises" from God yet to be fulfilled?

Remember - we are not wrestling against each other here my brother! We are wrestling with the Word of God to come to a clear understanding. And I thank God for your patience and endurance with me on these very important and fascinating questions.



During this current era, anyone who is called is justified (made righteous) in the same way, jointly. But, this does not mean that Israel is eliminated. Israel must be set aside temporarily in order for God to complete His current work in Christ's body, the church, at which time He will resume His work through Israel when the Kingdom of Heaven is evident on the earth.

What is the biblical foundation for that doctrine highlighted red?


Aionios zoe will be a blessing to them in that day as part of their inheritance.
We, concurrently, will be blessed with life greater than "aionios zoe", in that we will be part of a new creation, our bodies will be immortal.

Joel
The distinction between "aionios zoe" and "immortality" has yet to be settled in my mind. The primary problem I have with it is that the parallel passages in the Bible seem to show that the two terms mean the same thing, as discussed in previous posts.

Great working with you on this brother Joel,

God bless,

Richard

PS: HE IS RISEN!