PDA

View Full Version : Does OT Isreal = NT Church?



Pages : [1] 2

beforHim
Jun 5th 2008, 04:18 PM
Always wondered this. Seems to me to be the same thing, but pretty much no one agrees with me. I want to study it a little, so some different views from different people will give me a starting point, a point of reference. My own view might be skewed all by itself.

matthew94
Jun 5th 2008, 04:22 PM
God's people in the OT were made up of believing Jews and converted Gentiles.
They were called 'Israel'

God's people in the NT are made up of believing Jews and converted Gentiles.
They are called 'the church'

BroRog
Jun 5th 2008, 07:05 PM
I agree with Matthew and would like to add one more thing. Israel is the name given to the 12 tribes that came from Egypt, who also agreed to abide by the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai.

Windmill2000
Jun 5th 2008, 07:27 PM
As far as I see it Israel was Nation of people chosen by God.

The church is made up People from many Nations chosen by God

"Just my take on it"

merjorg
Jun 5th 2008, 07:37 PM
God's people in the OT were made up of believing Jews and converted Gentiles.
They were called 'Israel'

God's people in the NT are made up of believing Jews and converted Gentiles.
They are called 'the church'

So basically, believing Jews and believing Gentiles. All believers...

cross crusader
Jun 5th 2008, 07:58 PM
Always wondered this. Seems to me to be the same thing, but pretty much no one agrees with me. I want to study it a little, so some different views from different people will give me a starting point, a point of reference. My own view might be skewed all by itself.
no. we are under a better covenant. this is where people get into relacement theology.

cross crusader
Jun 5th 2008, 07:59 PM
I agree with Matthew and would like to add one more thing. Israel is the name given to the 12 tribes that came from Egypt, who also agreed to abide by the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai.
we agree to the covenant on calvary, not sinai.

Reynolds357
Jun 5th 2008, 08:11 PM
Always wondered this. Seems to me to be the same thing, but pretty much no one agrees with me. I want to study it a little, so some different views from different people will give me a starting point, a point of reference. My own view might be skewed all by itself.

No, the Church is not Israel. Replacement theology is one of the most dangerous false doctrines that has ever been taught. It is singlehandedly responsible for the murder of millions of innocent Jews. The Church is not Israel. If you can understand the book of Revelation, you can plainly see that the Church is not Israel.

matthew94
Jun 5th 2008, 08:46 PM
Singlehandedly responsible for the murder of millions of innocent Jews?

Come on now.

Anyways, nobody mentioned replacement theology. Jews weren't replaced. Gentiles were added to believing Jews.

cross crusader
Jun 5th 2008, 09:54 PM
Singlehandedly responsible for the murder of millions of innocent Jews?

Come on now.

Anyways, nobody mentioned replacement theology. Jews weren't replaced. Gentiles were added to believing Jews.
romans 9-11 states they were cut out of the vine, partially blinded, unless they accept Jesus as their messiah they cannot get to Heaven. SO are the Jews you are referring to doing that or are they still good as pertaining to the sinai covenant?

BroRog
Jun 5th 2008, 10:55 PM
I think it is important to keep the distinction between "Israel" as a corporate entity, and a "Jew" who is an individual. I believe Paul's point is to say, "Israel - the corporate entity" has been partially hardened, not "Jews" as individuals.

In my view, the Olive Tree is neither Israel or the Church; it's the New Covenant. The New Covenant belongs to Israel as a corporate entity as it says in Jeremiah 31, but individuals -- both Jews and Gentiles are being grafted on to that Covenant in view of their faith in Jesus.

Literalist-Luke
Jun 6th 2008, 04:54 AM
There is only one program for both Jew and Gentile, the death of Jesus on the cross. There will be only one body of redeemed people who are saved prior to Christ’s second coming. This will include Old and New Testament saints. “People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God.” (Luke 13:29). And again, “When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, ‘Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ ” (Matthew 8:10-12).

(I should clarify before going any further that I am totally opposed to Replacement Theology.)

There is only one group, Israel with the Gentiles grafted in, both dependant on the same root, that root being Abraham’s faith being credited to him as “righteousness”, via the death of Christ on the cross, both parties, Israel and the Gentiles, being merged into one set of believers.

The “remnant of Israel” from throughout history IS the Olive Tree. There has always been a “remnant”, as God told Elijah when he ran from Jezebel in I Kings 19:18 – “I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and whose mouths have not kissed him.” There was also a remnant in Jesus’ day which included the disciples plus His other followers, there is a remnant today, and there will be one at the end of the Tribulation. There has never “not” been a remnant. It will include the Jews who are saved at the 2nd Coming when they see “Him whom they have pierced”. Israel has never been set aside. They are still God’s chosen people. God still wants them to come into fellowship with Him even at this very moment, but since Christ has been revealed as the Passover Lamb, the procedures set down by Moses are outdated and no longer necessary. Jesus, the ultimate High Priest, has offered a sacrifice superior to those offered at the Jerusalem Temple so that no further sacrifice is needed for obtaining salvation. The Jews still have an open door in front of them just as they did in 69 AD. They just have to individually choose to walk through it, just as they could have in 69 AD. The way to walk through the door is to recognize Jesus as their national Messiah and as their personal Savior, which is precisely what we are called to do – to call on the name of the Lord. That includes Jesus as the Messiah and our Savior.

The destruction of 70 AD had a key result in God’s program of redemption: The Temple was destroyed, making carrying on with the Mosaic sacrifices impossible. That alone should give any devout Jew pause, that God would allow the destruction of Israel’s ability to carry out what they thought was His will. If God allowed that practice to be destroyed, then it must not be His will anymore, hmmmm? Which just goes along perfectly with the fact of Jesus having made the perfect, once-for-all sacrifice. So Israel still has an open door in front of them. Unfortunately, they won’t step through it as a nation until the end of the Tribulation. Some of them are stepping through it today, but most will hold out until they’re either dead or facing certain annihilation in Petra/Bosrah at the hands of the Antichrist/Mahdi, at which time all the teachings they will have been hearing from the Two Witnesses along with various other sources will finally get through their hard heads and they will finally acknowledge their mistake and say “Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord.”, resulting in the 2nd Coming.

Now, in the meantime, we Gentiles are being grafted into the Olive Tree while Jewish branches are being broken off due to “unbelief”. We are part of the Church that was originally an Israeli organism.

The Greek word translated “Church” in the Bible is “ekklesia”. It means “a called out assembly.” It is found 112 times in the Greek New Testament. In all 112 cases, except Matthew 16:18, Acts 7:38, 1 Corinthians 10:32, Ephesians 1:22, Ephesians 3:10, Ephesians 5:23-32, Colossians 1:18,24, Hebrews 2:12, Hebrews 12:23, “ekklesia” refers to local churches. Of these few exceptions, one of them refers specifically to Israel in the Old Testament (Acts 7:37), and another is a quote of an Old Testament prophecy about the Church (Hebrews 2:12).

Acts 7:37-38
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
(KJV)

Dispensationalists typically define the “Church” as a unique body which began on the day of Pentecost, completely separate from the nation of Israel. Yet, in Stephen’s defense before the Sanhedrin, he referred to Israel after the exodus as “the Church in the wilderness.” Why would Stephen violate the supposed dispensational divide by referring to Israel as “the Church?”

Most of the early Christians could not read Hebrew. They used a Greek translation of the Old Testament made by 70 Jewish scribes about 200 years before Christ. The early Christians and Jews called it “The Version of the Seventy.” Today it is referred to as the “Septuagint” (meaning 70) or simply by the Roman numerals “LXX.” In the first century, the Greek LXX was the common Bible of the Jewish synagogues and the early churches, although the Jews of Judea primarily used the Hebrew Scriptures. The Apostles frequently referred to the LXX and quoted it extensively in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament writers quoted the LXX more frequently than the Hebrew Old Testament. This is because it was written in the common Greek and could be read by the average believer of that time. Copies were plentiful and relatively cheap, while copies of the Hebrew Scriptures were usually only found at the synagogues within Israel itself and were moreover very expensive.

In Acts 7:37, the reason Stephen referred to Israel as “the Church” was because of his familiarity with the LXX. He was referring to passages like the following.

Deuteronomy 9:10 (LXX)
10 The Lord gave me two stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God. On them were all the commandments the Lord proclaimed to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the day of the Church. (“ekklesia”)

Deuteronomy 18:16 (LXX)
16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the Church (“ekklesia”) when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

There are many more cases in the LXX where the whole assembly of Israel, when they were gathered to worship, is called “the Church” or the “ekklesia” in the LXX. In fact, the Greek word “ekklesia” (Church) is found 73 times in the LXX Old Testament, almost as many times as in the Greek New Testament. So, the early Christians who spoke Greek had this background as their understanding of the word. They saw the “ekklesia” of the Old Testament as being the same organism as the “ekklesia” of the New Testament of which they were a part and had been “grafted in”. And we are the continuation of that even today at this moment! It is all one assembly of the remnant of those being called out to salvation by faith in God’s sacrifice on our behalf. Those of us today are fortunate enough to know that this sacrifice’s name is Jesus Christ.

So we Gentiles who are being grafted in are not a separate group in God’s program of redemption, but are one with the others, all under the death of Christ on the cross on our behalf. We will have distinctive national identities during the Millennium, such as Jews occupying the land given to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant, and everybody else, the redeemed Gentiles, having the rest of the world, but we will all be citizens of the same Kingdom of God under Christ’s rule from His throne in Jerusalem and Ezekiel’s Temple.

I should clarify that this is certainly NOT Replacement Theology. Replacement Theology says Israel has been cast aside and has no place in God’s plans. Quite the opposite is true. Were it not for Israel, we Gentiles would have no place in God’s plans. Without Israel, we are nothing. “You do not support the root, but the root supports you.” – Romans 11:18

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 08:37 AM
No, the Church is not Israel. Replacement theology is one of the most dangerous false doctrines that has ever been taught. It is singlehandedly responsible for the murder of millions of innocent Jews. The Church is not Israel. If you can understand the book of Revelation, you can plainly see that the Church is not Israel.

The church is spiritual Israel. Literal Israel is a divorced woman who worships false gods. Nothing justifies murder but the doctrine is true whether called "replacement theology" or another term.

The people of God are branches on a certain olive tree. When the NT came, those who did not believe in Christ were removed from that tree and those that did believe were allowed to remain. In addition, branches from other olive trees (gentiles) were taken and added to this special tree. This tree is Israel, the people of God, but now it is not based on race but on the heart and Spirit.

Without Christ you are a gentile in God's eyes. "those who are of the flesh, these are not the children of God" as Paul clearly teaches.

Romans 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 08:40 AM
Jews weren't replaced. Gentiles were added to believing Jews.

Unbelieving Jews were replaced by believing gentiles. That's where the replacement part comes in "replacement theology".

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 08:45 AM
In my view, the Olive Tree is neither Israel or the Church; it's the New Covenant.

The problem with that is that Israel is often referred to as an olive tree in scripture and then we have this special olive tree that only contains branches that are Christian whether they are original Jewish branches or added on gentile branches. It is clear that the tree was and still is Israel but is composed of all races. No where in scripture is the new Testament, or new covenant or any agreement or contract refereed to as an olive tree.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 08:52 AM
Israel has never been set aside. They are still God’s chosen people.

That's not what scripture says.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Romans 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.





I should clarify that this is certainly NOT Replacement Theology. Replacement Theology says Israel has been cast aside and has no place in God’s plans.

That's not what replacement theology teaches. It teaches that unbelieving Jews are replaced by believing gentiles. Oddly enough, that is also what scripture teaches!





Quite the opposite is true. Were it not for Israel, we Gentiles would have no place in God’s plans. Without Israel, we are nothing. “You do not support the root, but the root supports you.” – Romans 11:18

No, no no! Unbelieving Jews are not the root! God is the root! People are the branches! This is so often and so badly misunderstood and misused. It never says unbelieving Jews/Israel is the root that gentiles feed off of. And before you say it, I am not a gentile :)


Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called the uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel & strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are NO LONGER STRANGERS and FOREIGNERS, but FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints and members of the household of God,

When a gentile becomes a "fellow citizen" with a Christian Jew he is an Israelite just as the Jew is.

matthew94
Jun 6th 2008, 03:53 PM
Unbelieving Jews were replaced by believing gentiles. That's where the replacement part comes in "replacement theology".

You and I both know that, but that's not how many others think of the term. They think 'replacement theology' means that God replaced Jews (in general) with Gentiles (in general). But I've met very few people these days that believe such a thing. In fact, I've never MET a single one.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 03:58 PM
There has to be two separate entities... the Church's responsibility toward Israel is to provoke them to jealousy in the end times... not all Israel is saved because a prophecy in Romans 11:26 says that all Israel will be saved... So Jesus doesn't make the church Israel... we become grafted in to the promises, but the reality is that there is a marked difference between Israel and the church... I have yet to find the marked difference but I know it's there

there is still an unfulfilled promise that God has yet to fulfill to Israel and that's the salvation of all Israel in Romans 11:26

RogerW
Jun 6th 2008, 04:17 PM
There has to be two separate entities... the Church's responsibility toward Israel is to provoke them to jealousy in the end times... not all Israel is saved because a prophecy in Romans 11:26 says that all Israel will be saved... So Jesus doesn't make the church Israel... we become grafted in to the promises, but the reality is that there is a marked difference between Israel and the church... I have yet to find the marked difference but I know it's there

there is still an unfulfilled promise that God has yet to fulfill to Israel and that's the salvation of all Israel in Romans 11:26

Greetings timmyb,

But can we rightly call it ethnic Israel after Gentiles have been grafted into the same good tree? Would not all Israel now be the Israel of God, made up of both Jew and Gentile (after the last of the Gentiles come in)?

Ga 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Ro 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 fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Ro 11:26 And so all Israel [of God] shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Many Blessings,
RW

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 04:20 PM
i don't exactly agree with that interpretation because, we don't become Israel by accepting Christ... we become a part of Christ and Christ alone...

Israel is something entirely different...

Besides knowing what Israel is going to go through in the last days, I am not too hasty to call myself Israel in the least bit (Zechariah 14) two thirds of Israel will but cut off and die but the remnant will be saved)

Israel cannot be Gentile and Gentiles can in no way be Israel.. because we have different responsibilities to the world and to each other...

Don't get me wrong, we are grafted into the promises as 'spiritual' Israel... but there is a difference between 'political' Israel and 'spiritual' Israel and 'ethnic' Israel... if that were not so then we wouldn't need the prefixes...

You have to know what Israel Paul is talking about in context with the scripture...

matthew94
Jun 6th 2008, 04:22 PM
there is still an unfulfilled promise that God has yet to fulfill to Israel and that's the salvation of all Israel in Romans 11:26

I think you are mis-interpreting Romans 11:26

We know that not all physical Israel will be saved b/c Paul says so in an extremely clear manner in the exact same context. For example, he quotes Isaiah in Romans 9:27 as saying that 'though the number of the Israelites be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.' 10:16 specifically says that 'not all' accepted in the past. 11:4 talks about how not all accepted back in Elijah's day. In 11:14 Paul hopes that 'some of them' will be provoked to salvation. In 11:23 he knows that their salvation is a matter of 'if' they do not persist in unbelief.

So the question becomes, how can Paul know throughout the passage that NOT ALL Israel will be saved and then state in 11:26 that ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED. Either Paul is contradicting himself in a brief context (very unlikely) or you've mis-interpreted 11:26. Isn't it possible that when Paul mentions 'Israel' in 11:26 he has a different 'Israel' in mind than what he was talking about in the previous references? It's not only possible, it's likely since Paul himself describes to us how there are 2 definitions of Israel in his context

The context starts with this bold claim:
"Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"

So Paul is saying that not all Israelites are truly Israelites. And the factor in question is biological descent. In other words, Paul is making the same claim Jesus made and that Paul makes elsewhere, namely, that biological descent is not enough to make you one of God's people. So, in the context of Romans 9-11, Paul has 2 definitions of Israel at his disposal.

1) Genetic Israel
2) True Israel

Romans 9-11 starts out by alerting us to the fact that not all of group 1 is part of group 2. Then, Paul builds on that by saying that some gentiles have entered into group 2. Then Paul cautions those converted gentiles not to get prideful b/c group 1 is still invited into group 2. Then Paul summarizes that this entire process of gentiles and Jews entering group 2 constitutes ALL ISRAEL.

That's why the verse in question, Romans 11:26, uses the word SO instead of the word THEN. In my observation, almost all dispensationalists pretend the word THEN is utilized here. Paul isn't giving CHRONOLOGY as if gentiles will get saved and THEN all the Jews living at the time will get saved. He's stating a CONCLUSION that the full number of gentiles and the softened part of Jews collectively makes up TRUE ISRAEL.

RogerW
Jun 6th 2008, 04:30 PM
I think you are mis-interpreting Romans 11:26

We know that not all physical Israel will be saved b/c Paul says so in an extremely clear manner in the exact same context. For example, he quotes Isaiah in Romans 9:27 as saying that 'though the number of the Israelites be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.' 10:16 specifically says that 'not all' accepted in the past. 11:4 talks about how not all accepted back in Elijah's day. In 11:14 Paul hopes that 'some of them' will be provoked to salvation. In 11:23 he knows that their salvation is a matter of 'if' they do not persist in unbelief.

So the question becomes, how can Paul know throughout the passage that NOT ALL Israel will be saved and then state in 11:26 that ALL ISRAEL WILL BE SAVED. Either Paul is contradicting himself in a brief context (very unlikely) or you've mis-interpreted 11:26. Isn't it possible that when Paul mentions 'Israel' in 11:26 he has a different 'Israel' in mind than what he was talking about in the previous references? It's not only possible, it's likely since Paul himself describes to us how there are 2 definitions of Israel in his context

The context starts with this bold claim:
"Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"

So Paul is saying that not all Israelites are truly Israelites. And the factor in question is biological descent. In other words, Paul is making the same claim Jesus made and that Paul makes elsewhere, namely, that biological descent is not enough to make you one of God's people. So, in the context of Romans 9-11, Paul has 2 definitions of Israel at his disposal.

1) Genetic Israel
2) True Israel

Romans 9-11 starts out by alerting us to the fact that not all of group 1 is part of group 2. Then, Paul builds on that by saying that some gentiles have entered into group 2. Then Paul cautions those converted gentiles not to get prideful b/c group 1 is still invited into group 2. Then Paul summarizes that this entire process of gentiles and Jews entering group 2 constitutes ALL ISRAEL.

That's why the verse in question, Romans 11:26, uses the word SO instead of the word THEN. In my observation, almost all dispensationalists pretend the word THEN is utilized here. Paul isn't giving CHRONOLOGY as if gentiles will get saved and THEN all the Jews living at the time will get saved. He's stating a CONCLUSION that the full number of gentiles and the softened part of Jews collectively makes up TRUE ISRAEL.

That's a good point Matthew! 'So' literally means - in this way, or after this manner.

Many Blessings,
RW

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 04:33 PM
matthew,

I think you are misinterpreting my interpretation of Romans 11:26... not ALL Israel will be saved in the context that every Jew that ever lived will be saved... I am saying that there will come a day when the Jewish people.. every Jew on the earth will make the choice to accept Christ and will call him back to be their king (matthew 23:27-39)

It's hard to equate the Israel that Paul portrays in Romans 9-11 as including the church because he mentions how Israel is blinded to the truth of the Gospel... So while I agree that the TRUE Israel is founded only in Christ and in Christ alone... But that's not the Israel that Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11... when all Israel being saved in Romans 11:26 I honestly believe he's talking about the Jewish people who are children of the promise...

Literalist-Luke
Jun 6th 2008, 04:44 PM
The church is spiritual Israel. Literal Israel is a divorced woman who worships false gods. Nothing justifies murder but the doctrine is true whether called "replacement theology" or another term.

The people of God are branches on a certain olive tree. When the NT came, those who did not believe in Christ were removed from that tree and those that did believe were allowed to remain. In addition, branches from other olive trees (gentiles) were taken and added to this special tree. This tree is Israel, the people of God, but now it is not based on race but on the heart and Spirit.

Without Christ you are a gentile in God's eyes. "those who are of the flesh, these are not the children of God" as Paul clearly teaches.

Romans 9:25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Unbelieving Jews were replaced by believing gentiles. That's where the replacement part comes in "replacement theology".
The problem with that is that Israel is often referred to as an olive tree in scripture and then we have this special olive tree that only contains branches that are Christian whether they are original Jewish branches or added on gentile branches. It is clear that the tree was and still is Israel but is composed of all races. No where in scripture is the new Testament, or new covenant or any agreement or contract refereed to as an olive tree.Romans 1:1-2, 11, 26, 29, 31-32 – “Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! All Israel will be saved. God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. They [I] too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

God has not rejected Israel. The majority of Israelites have rejected Him and they will be judged accordingly, just like anybody else. But there is a day coming when “all Israel will be saved”, meaning every Jew who is alive at that time, plus the Old Testament promises them that, after that day, nobody will tell a Jew to “know the Lord” because all of them will already “know the Lord”.

Replacement Theology is a very dangerous lie that gave Hitler an excuse for his Holocaust. We Gentiles are being grafted into the Israeli olive tree. Without Israel, we would be nothing. Without them, we would be lost forever. Be careful how you judge them, for “if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.” (Romans 11:21)

Literalist-Luke
Jun 6th 2008, 04:55 PM
Naphal and matthew94, it appears to me, now that I read over your posts again, that we are actually in agreement about our position in relation to Israel. Individual Jews who reject God are in turn rejected by Him, just as would be the case with any Gentile. Jews who accept Him are accepted by Him just as would be the case with any Gentile. The Jews who reject Him are the "broken off" branches, and the Gentiles who accept Him are the "grafted in" branches, all going into the same tree.

I agree that Israel is not the root. The root is Abraham's faith when he "believed God" and it was counted to him as righteousness. That same righteousness can be imputed to us as well, via Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.

It appears to me that the only two things we might actually have a difference on are (1) There is a day coming, at the 2nd Coming, when every Jew left alive on the planet will accept Christ as their Messiah and Savior. And (2), the use of the words "Replacement Theology". Most people take that to mean that God's promises to Israel in the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant have been nullified that that is not the case at all. God's promises to them were unconditional, regardless of their obedience/disobedience. Each individual's right to participate in those promises are conditional upon their acceptance/unacceptance of God, but the promises will still be fulfilled nonetheless.

Are we on the same page now? http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/nod.gif

matthew94
Jun 6th 2008, 05:08 PM
Yes, we are on the same page about what we agree about and what we disagree about :)

matthew94
Jun 6th 2008, 05:12 PM
matthew,

I think you are misinterpreting my interpretation of Romans 11:26... not ALL Israel will be saved in the context that every Jew that ever lived will be saved... I am saying that there will come a day when the Jewish people.. every Jew on the earth will make the choice to accept Christ and will call him back to be their king (matthew 23:27-39)

It's hard to equate the Israel that Paul portrays in Romans 9-11 as including the church because he mentions how Israel is blinded to the truth of the Gospel... So while I agree that the TRUE Israel is founded only in Christ and in Christ alone... But that's not the Israel that Paul is talking about in Romans 9-11... when all Israel being saved in Romans 11:26 I honestly believe he's talking about the Jewish people who are children of the promise...

I knew what you were saying, I explained why I disagree. Romans 11:26 is not, in my opinion, talking about a future day. He's stating a CONCLUSION, not a CHRONOLOGICAL prophecy.

Your 2nd paragraph evidences the problem. You seem to imply that Paul can only mean 1 thing by the term 'Israel' in a given context. But, as I explained, Paul goes out of his way to make known that he thinks there are 2 different definitions of Israel. There is genetic Israel and there is true Israel.

But, as literalistluke described, we aren't really disagreeing about the essentials..namely, that everyone who will be saved must be saved via Christ. You think it's guaranteed that all genetic Jews at the end of time will convert. I simply HOPE that is the case, but don't see this Scripture as promising that.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 05:31 PM
yeah... i just read it as all Israel WILL be saved as a future tense...

but i'm still trying to get a grip on this as well

BroRog
Jun 6th 2008, 05:50 PM
The problem with that is that Israel is often referred to as an olive tree in scripture and then we have this special olive tree that only contains branches that are Christian whether they are original Jewish branches or added on gentile branches. It is clear that the tree was and still is Israel but is composed of all races. No where in scripture is the new Testament, or new covenant or any agreement or contract refereed to as an olive tree.

Hi Naphal, I agree that scripture refers to Israel as an Olive Tree. After my studies of Romans 11, I determined that, in this case, the Olive Tree represented something else.

Another thing, I believe the "branches" in Romans 11 do not represent individual people.

BroRog
Jun 6th 2008, 05:53 PM
There has to be two separate entities... the Church's responsibility toward Israel is to provoke them to jealousy in the end times... not all Israel is saved because a prophecy in Romans 11:26 says that all Israel will be saved... So Jesus doesn't make the church Israel... we become grafted in to the promises, but the reality is that there is a marked difference between Israel and the church... I have yet to find the marked difference but I know it's there

there is still an unfulfilled promise that God has yet to fulfill to Israel and that's the salvation of all Israel in Romans 11:26

Timmy, I agree with you. That's why I suggest that people maintain the term "Israel" as a corporate term, rather than a synonym for "Jew". It's too easy to get confused between the two.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 05:56 PM
we become grafted in to the promises, but the reality is that there is a marked difference between Israel and the church... I have yet to find the marked difference but I know it's there


I think this is very telling and should serve as a lesson...there is no difference between believers in Christ and Israel...the olive tree is and always has been Israel, the chosen of God it just simply isn't defined by race any longer. If you can document that the olive tree symbology is not Israel or that it is used as a symbol of a covenant or "promises" or something then you can start to document what you believe in your heart.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 06:00 PM
Timmy, I agree with you. That's why I suggest that people maintain the term "Israel" as a corporate term, rather than a synonym for "Jew". It's too easy to get confused between the two.

the application of Romans 9-11 is strictly corporate no individual application....

there has to be a marked difference between Christians and Israel or else why would Paul be writing to educate saved Christians as to the nation of Israel

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 06:03 PM
I think this is very telling and should serve as a lesson...there is no difference between believers in Christ and Israel...the olive tree is and always has been Israel, the chosen of God it just simply isn't defined by race any longer. If you can document that the olive tree symbology is not Israel or that it is used as a symbol of a covenant or "promises" or something then you can start to document what you believe in your heart.


me and you have been down this road time and time again... and I still say that Israel and the Church are two separate entities... all Israel is not saved... that's dancing close to replacement theology if you ask me... to corporately call the church Israel is blatant replacement theology and unbiblical... if the Church is Israel then why does Paul tell us that God has not cast off his CHOSEN PEOPLE in Romans 11:1 Chosen People meaning Israel as a nation

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 06:04 PM
God has not rejected Israel. The majority of Israelites have rejected Him and they will be judged accordingly, just like anybody else.

He has rejected all unbelieving Israel and will continue to do so.




But there is a day coming when “all Israel will be saved”, meaning every Jew who is alive at that time, plus the Old Testament promises them that, after that day, nobody will tell a Jew to “know the Lord” because all of them will already “know the Lord”.

The All Israel will be saved applies strictly and only to those who are attached to the Olive tree which is Israel. They are Christians religiously, and racially they are of all races. All who are Israel spiritually shall be saved. All natural born Israelites, or anyone legally an Israelite that is not a Christian shall not be saved and is not even attached to true Israel.



Replacement Theology is a very dangerous lie that gave Hitler an excuse for his Holocaust.

Hitler didn't believe in replacement theology. He didn't believe in Christ! He had his own reasons for hating all Jews.



We Gentiles are being grafted into the Israeli olive tree. Without Israel, we would be nothing.

That is not true at all. Without Christ we are nothing. Like i said before, I am not a gentile and I am not the only one here so you shouldn't use broad claims like "we" are all gentiles because it isn't accurate.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 06:06 PM
me and you have been down this road time and time again... and I still say that Israel and the Church are two separate entities... all Israel is not saved... that's dancing close to replacement theology if you ask me...


Yes it is because replacement theology is from the bible :)

Unbelieving Jews are broken from the olive tree and believing gentiles are grafted onto the tree. The replacement is the unbelieving for the believing. If the grafting didn't occur then replacement theology would be false.

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 06:07 PM
and I still say that Israel and the Church are two separate entities...


Let me ask you to ponder this then: Was Israel and the church separate entities in the OT?

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 06:08 PM
Hitler, based on reading the works of Luther, believed that he was fulfilling the work of God by exterminating Jews... Luther was a proponent of Replacement Theology later in his life...

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 06:10 PM
Yes it is because replacement theology is from the bible :)

Unbelieving Jews are broken from the olive tree and believing gentiles are grafted onto the tree. The replacement is the unbelieving for the believing. If the grafting didn't occur then replacement theology would be false.

this is based on corporate Israel... Israel is not Christians nor are they believing... Romans 11 is clear on that... Israel's mind is blinded to the truth of the gospel and their hearts are hardened... the Church cannot and will not accept that about themselves...

you cannot biblically call all Christians Israel... that's nothing more than religious resentment if you ask me

I don't mean to offend but I'm telling you what I see in people who say these kind of things... the early Catholic Church was resentful of Israel and sought to persecute them... Satan has put a spirit of resentment between us and Israel and Israel will be the stumbling block that will test the work of salvation in each of us...

be not ignorant of this mystery God still has a plan for Israel... and it is unwise to call Israel the church

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 06:20 PM
Naphal and matthew94, it appears to me, now that I read over your posts again, that we are actually in agreement about our position in relation to Israel. Individual Jews who reject God are in turn rejected by Him, just as would be the case with any Gentile. Jews who accept Him are accepted by Him just as would be the case with any Gentile. The Jews who reject Him are the "broken off" branches, and the Gentiles who accept Him are the "grafted in" branches, all going into the same tree.

Yes that's is what I believe.



I agree that Israel is not the root. The root is Abraham's faith when he "believed God" and it was counted to him as righteousness. That same righteousness can be imputed to us as well, via Christ's sacrifice on our behalf.

Yes.




It appears to me that the only two things we might actually have a difference on are (1) There is a day coming, at the 2nd Coming, when every Jew left alive on the planet will accept Christ as their Messiah and Savior.

I have not decided if this is a correct interpretation or not. It seems highly unfair to all Jews in history who didn't have the benefit of being alive on that day.




And (2), the use of the words "Replacement Theology". Most people take that to mean that God's promises to Israel in the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant have been nullified that that is not the case at all.

The term is defined in many different ways, some good and some false.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 06:22 PM
and it's not fair to the 2/3 who die as well... but who ever said that God was fair?...

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 06:22 PM
Hi Naphal, I agree that scripture refers to Israel as an Olive Tree. After my studies of Romans 11, I determined that, in this case, the Olive Tree represented something else.

Another thing, I believe the "branches" in Romans 11 do not represent individual people.

Ok, well then we disagree on both points then.

matthew94
Jun 6th 2008, 06:39 PM
and it's not fair to the 2/3 who die as well... but who ever said that God was fair?...

God did!

We might think some things are unfair, but if God does them, they are not unfair.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 06:41 PM
he is holy and righteous in all he does... and the way he is dealing with Israel is going to make all the world and all the redeemed sing of God's wisdom for all eternity...

Oh the depths of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God...

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 06:50 PM
he is holy and righteous in all he does... and the way he is dealing with Israel is going to make all the world and all the redeemed sing of God's wisdom for all eternity...

Oh the depths of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God...

In case you missed this.

Let me ask you to ponder this then: Was Israel and the church separate entities in the OT?

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 06:57 PM
In case you missed this.

Let me ask you to ponder this then: Was Israel and the church separate entities in the OT?

the church didn't even exist in the OT. I know where you are going with this... God can only have one 'chosen people' and he's replaced Israel with the church based on belief in the Messiah... completely false... Israel is still chosen of God and God is going to put them through hell on earth before they realize that, and it's our duty as believers as believers to see God complete his promises to the nation of Israel because they are the ones who will invite Christ to come back (Matt 23:27-39)... so the salvation of the nation of Israel is a big deal to any believer in the Messiah Jesus if you ask me...

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 07:05 PM
the church didn't even exist in the OT.

Sure it did:


Acts 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:


They had a "mobile church" but it was church and when they settled in a place they had more permanent structures. You know that church is merely a gathering of believers, especially for official purposes.




I know where you are going with this... God can only have one 'chosen people' and he's replaced Israel with the church based on belief in the Messiah... completely false... Israel is still chosen of God and God is going to put them through hell on earth before they realize that, and it's our duty as believers as believers to see God complete his promises to the nation of Israel because they are the ones who will invite Christ to come back (Matt 23:27-39)... so the salvation of the nation of Israel is a big deal to any believer in the Messiah Jesus if you ask me...

There is only one chosen of God and it is not unbelievers. Yes, God has plans for the unbelievers but that doesn't make them the chosen of God anymore as it's not based on racial bloodlines anymore.

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called the uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel & strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are NO LONGER STRANGERS and FOREIGNERS, but FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints and members of the household of God,

When a gentile becomes a "fellow citizen" with a Christian Jew he is an Israelite just as the Jew is. On the flip side, Jews that do not believe in Christ are cast out and are no longer "citizens" of Israel.

John146
Jun 6th 2008, 07:09 PM
No, the Church is not Israel. Replacement theology is one of the most dangerous false doctrines that has ever been taught. It is singlehandedly responsible for the murder of millions of innocent Jews. The Church is not Israel. If you can understand the book of Revelation, you can plainly see that the Church is not Israel.

Which Israel do the following passages refer to?

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That 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. - Romans 9:6-8

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. - Ephesians 2:11-13

BroRog
Jun 6th 2008, 07:11 PM
Matthew,

We know that ALL physical Israel will be saved according to Jeremiah 31. So what is Paul doing in Romans 9-11? He is attempting to show how it can be that God will save all ethnic Israel, while that salvation will be based on faith. In my view, it is important to hold fast the distinction between corporate Israel and Jewish ethnicity. God's promise is to them AS A GROUP, not to them individually.

If you don't mind, I would like to answer the objections you raised with Timmy, in hopes of fleshing out what I mean.'s project in Romans 9-11.

Matthew -- We know that not all physical Israel will be saved b/c Paul says so in an extremely clear manner in the exact same context.

Brorog -- I would say it like this, "We know that God will not save each and every Jew (individual) even as God promised to save the House of Judah and the House of Israel (corporate).

Michael -- For example, he quotes Isaiah in Romans 9:27 as saying that 'though the number of the Israelites be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved.

Brorog -- In this example, we see Paul in action as he attempts to help his readers understand other passages of scripture that pertain to the same idea. God makes a promise in Jeremiah 31 that he would save "each man and his neighbor", which appears to be all inclusive of every Jew in the nation. But God also says that only a remnant will be saved. How can both of those ideas be true at the same time? That's what Paul tries to answer for his readers.

Michael -- Isn't it possible that when Paul mentions 'Israel' in 11:26 he has a different 'Israel' in mind than what he was talking about in the previous references?

Brorog -- This is one solution to the apparent contradiction you posed. However, it fails on the main issue at hand. The promise found in Jeremiah 31 is very specific concerning the beneficiaries of the promise: The sons and daughters of those who came out of Egypt; the House of Judah and the House of Israel; those who broke the previous covenant. While it is true that Paul has revealed the fact that individual Gentiles can find salvation at the cross and partake of the Olive Tree, the Jeremiah promise is specific to the two Houses, which also promises to save "each man and his neighbor." That's never happened. As Paul says, and you rightly point out, only a fraction of the nation of Israel have believed -- even until today.

The point here is this, while the Jeremiah prophecy assumes that ethnicity is a necessary condition for it's fulfillment, Paul argues that it is not a sufficient condition for it.

Matthew -- So Paul is saying that not all Israelites are truly Israelites. And the factor in question is biological descent. In other words, Paul is making the same claim Jesus made and that Paul makes elsewhere, namely, that biological descent is not enough to make you one of God's people.

Brorog -- Yes, this is his point. However, to be more precise (IMO) we should say "not all Israelites are Israel." Again, God is making a corporate promise to the nation of Israel in Jeremiah 31. And for this reason, we should maintain the idea of corporate Israel in our investigation of the matter. To put it another way, "not all Jews (individuals) are Israel (corporate).

I believe Paul's statement in 9:6 is to assert that the "Israel" (corporate) of Jeremiah 31 will contain those (individuals) who have the same faith as Abraham. You rightly point out, I think, that biological descent is not enough to make one a person of God. That's right. But in this context, the question isn't, "who are the people of God", But rather, "what will Israel look like when God fulfills his promise to them as a nation?" Paul's answer to that is, "each member of that nation will have the faith of Abraham."

Matthew -- That's why the verse in question, Romans 11:26, uses the word SO instead of the word THEN. In my observation, almost all dispensationalists pretend the word THEN is utilized here. Paul isn't giving CHRONOLOGY as if gentiles will get saved and THEN all the Jews living at the time will get saved. He's stating a CONCLUSION that the full number of gentiles and the softened part of Jews collectively makes up TRUE ISRAEL.

Brorog -- Let's keep going in his argument to the end. And I think you might see that his statement that "all Israel" will be saved isn't a universal statement about the church, but a "QED" to his original assertion that "not all Israelites are Israel", which speaks to directly to the Jeremiah 31 prophecy. As he says, "he will remove ungodliness from Jacob." The operative word here is "Jacob."

In his concluding remarks he says this,

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of [God's] choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.

The antecedent of the term "they" is the Israel of chapters 9-11, which highlights the fact that God had not yet fulfilled his promise to the fathers, which he intends to do even though they remain enemies of the Gospel at the present time.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 07:13 PM
John and Naphal,

don't get arrogant toward unsaved Israel... they will be the rock upon which you will stumble if you are not careful

Literalist-Luke
Jun 6th 2008, 07:14 PM
The church didn't even exist in the OT.I would have to disagree with that statement and here's why:

The Greek word translated “Church” in the Bible is “ekklesia”. It means “a called out assembly.” It is found 112 times in the Greek New Testament. In all 112 cases, except Matthew 16:18, Acts 7:38, 1 Corinthians 10:32, Ephesians 1:22, Ephesians 3:10, Ephesians 5:23-32, Colossians 1:18,24, Hebrews 2:12, Hebrews 12:23, “ekklesia” refers to local churches. Of these few exceptions, one of them refers specifically to Israel in the Old Testament (Acts 7:37), and another is a quote of an Old Testament prophecy about the Church (Hebrews 2:12).

Acts 7:37-38
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
(KJV)

Dispensationalists typically define the “Church” as a unique body which began on the day of Pentecost, completely separate from the nation of Israel. Yet, in Stephen’s defense before the Sanhedrin, he referred to Israel after the exodus as “the Church in the wilderness.” Why would Stephen violate the supposed dispensational divide by referring to Israel as “the Church?”

Most of the early Christians could not read Hebrew. They used a Greek translation of the Old Testament made by 70 Jewish scribes about 200 years before Christ. The early Christians and Jews called it “The Version of the Seventy.” Today it is referred to as the “Septuagint” (meaning 70) or simply by the Roman numerals “LXX.” In the first century, the Greek LXX was the common Bible of the Jewish synagogues and the early churches, although the Jews of Judea primarily used the Hebrew Scriptures. The Apostles frequently referred to the LXX and quoted it extensively in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament writers quoted the LXX more frequently than the Hebrew Old Testament. This is because it was written in the common Greek and could be read by the average believer of that time. Copies were plentiful and relatively cheap, while copies of the Hebrew Scriptures were usually only found at the synagogues within Israel itself and were moreover very expensive.

In Acts 7:37, the reason Stephen referred to Israel as “the Church” was because of his familiarity with the LXX. He was referring to passages like the following.

Deuteronomy 9:10 (LXX)
10 The Lord gave me two stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God. On them were all the commandments the Lord proclaimed to you on the mountain out of the fire, on the day of the Church. (“ekklesia”)

Deuteronomy 18:16 (LXX)
16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the Church (“ekklesia”) when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

There are many more cases in the LXX where the whole assembly of Israel, when they were gathered to worship, is called “the Church” or the “ekklesia” in the LXX. In fact, the Greek word “ekklesia” (Church) is found 73 times in the LXX Old Testament, almost as many times as in the Greek New Testament. So, the early Christians who spoke Greek had this background as their understanding of the word. They saw the “ekklesia” of the Old Testament as being the same organism as the “ekklesia” of the New Testament of which they were a part and had been “grafted in”. And we are the continuation of that even today at this moment! It is all one assembly of the remnant of those being called out to salvation by faith in God’s sacrifice on our behalf. Those of us today are fortunate enough to know that this sacrifice’s name is Jesus Christ.

So Gentiles who are being grafted in are not a separate group in God’s program of redemption, but are one with the others, all under the death of Christ on the cross on our behalf. We will have distinctive national identities during the Millennium, such as Jews occupying the land given to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant, and everybody else, the redeemed Gentiles, having the rest of the world, but we will all be citizens of the same Kingdom of God under Christ’s rule from His throne in Jerusalem and Ezekiel’s Temple.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 07:16 PM
never heard it like that... I learn something everyday

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 07:16 PM
John and Naphal,

don't get arrogant toward unsaved Israel... they will be the rock upon which you will stumble if you are not careful

No...Christ is our rock and Christians who remain in Him will not stumble. We should not be arrogant about unsaved Israel as if they are something special. They are not anymore special than any other group of unbelievers. Esteeming the faithless is a stumbler to ones Christian faith IMO.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 07:19 PM
No...Christ is our rock and Christians who remain in Him will not stumble. We should not be arrogant about unsaved Israel as if they are something special. They are not anymore special than any other group of unbelievers. Esteeming the faithless is a stumbler to ones Christian faith IMO.

19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.

Literalist-Luke
Jun 6th 2008, 07:22 PM
No...Christ is our rock and Christians who remain in Him will not stumble. We should not be arrogant about unsaved Israel as if they are something special. They are not anymore special than any other group of unbelievers. Esteeming the faithless is a stumbler to ones Christian faith IMO.That's right. :agree:

Romans 11:20b-21 - "Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either."

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 07:32 PM
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.


You misuse these verses. First of all I am not a gentile so they don't apply to me. Second, the wrong thing here is for a grafted gentile to say God removed the natural branch so the gentile could be added but the reason for the removal was not because the gentile was so desired but because of the branches lack of faith.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 07:38 PM
Right now that is the case... They don't believe but God has made a promise to the nation of Israel that he would rule and reign on the earth from Jerusalem and the Jews would be the ones to call him back... That's the fulfillment of Romans 11:26 and to neglect that is going to cause major offense in the body of Christ in the last days... Many are already offended with God over the subject of Israel... it's higly controversial which is evidenced by our conversation... to neglect even unsaved Israel is to neglect God's heart... and to neglect God's heart in the last days is dangerous... dangerous is I mean people will lose their salvation over this issue

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 07:49 PM
Right now that is the case... They don't believe but God has made a promise to the nation of Israel that he would rule and reign on the earth from Jerusalem and the Jews would be the ones to call him back...

Christian Jews will do that.



to neglect even unsaved Israel is to neglect God's heart... and to neglect God's heart in the last days is dangerous... dangerous is I mean people will lose their salvation over this issue

It must be properly understood and divided or else there will be problems. There is a clear difference between Israel/God's chosen in Christ and racial Israel which does not believe. God has a plan for all, believer and non-believer but never should we confuse the two nor esteem the unbeliever over the believer. We can't also say "the unbeliver will believe eventually" and thus treat them as if they are equals in Christ already. I am not even sure if this doctrine of "all racial Jews alive will accept Christ when Christ returns" is true...it sounds false to me.

timmyb
Jun 6th 2008, 07:53 PM
I am not completely convinced that Israel has anything to do with genetics... I am more convinced that it's the ones who claim the promse... children of the promise... because not all who are descended from israel are really Israel... so it's not genitcs...

I'm still learning... but I am completely convinced that Israel is a distinctly identifiable corporate entity separate from the church, some believe, some do not... but in the end All Israel will be saved and the leadership of Israel will call Christ back echoing the call of all Israel and the Holy Spirit and the Bride of Christ... they are two completely different entities... that much I know is true... but the correct identification of Israel is a bit shaky in my mind

Naphal
Jun 6th 2008, 08:56 PM
I am not completely convinced that Israel has anything to do with genetics... I am more convinced that it's the ones who claim the promse... children of the promise... because not all who are descended from israel are really Israel... so it's not genitcs...

I'm still learning... but I am completely convinced that Israel is a distinctly identifiable corporate entity separate from the church, some believe, some do not...



There are two Israel's, maybe three. There is the racial Israelite which is born a Jew, related to the Jews of old. Then there is the spiritual Israel which is comprised of Jews and gentiles in Christ and lastly there are legal Israelites, citizens of the state of Israel who may or may not be Jewish racially or religiously.



but in the end All Israel will be saved and the leadership of Israel will call Christ back echoing the call of all Israel and the Holy Spirit and the Bride of Christ... they are two completely different entities... that much I know is true... but the correct identification of Israel is a bit shaky in my mind

It's complex alright.

Literalist-Luke
Jun 7th 2008, 04:56 AM
It's complex alright.Only because we've made it so. When you boil it down to one people, both Jew and Gentile, all saved by the same death of Christ on the cross, it becomes quite simple.

Naphal
Jun 7th 2008, 05:03 AM
Only because we've made it so. When you boil it down to one people, both Jew and Gentile, all saved by the same death of Christ on the cross, it becomes quite simple.

When I first started using a computer it was very complex and full of new things I didn't understand or know about. After enough time, it began to be easier to understand. This topic is similar to those who are first beginning to see the relationship of the Church and true Israel vs. those not in Christ :)

wpm
Jun 7th 2008, 05:30 AM
There has to be two separate entities... the Church's responsibility toward Israel is to provoke them to jealousy in the end times... not all Israel is saved because a prophecy in Romans 11:26 says that all Israel will be saved... So Jesus doesn't make the church Israel... we become grafted in to the promises, but the reality is that there is a marked difference between Israel and the church... I have yet to find the marked difference but I know it's there

there is still an unfulfilled promise that God has yet to fulfill to Israel and that's the salvation of all Israel in Romans 11:26

Let us establish what "all Israel" is from Paul's introductory remarks in Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”

Paul

Naphal
Jun 7th 2008, 05:47 AM
Let us establish what "all Israel" is from Paul's introductory remarks in Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”

Paul

It's all right there isn't it?

Gill

for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; that is, they which are the descendants of the patriarch Jacob, whose name was Israel; or who are of the Israelitish nation, of the stock of Israel, belonging to that people; they are not all את ישראל, "the Israel", by way of emphasis, as in Psa_25:22, or the "Israel of God", Gal_6:16, the Israel whom Jehovah the Father has chosen for a peculiar people; which Christ has redeemed from all their iniquities; which the Spirit of God calls with an holy calling, by special grace, to special privileges; the seed of Israel who are justified in Christ, whose iniquities are so pardoned and done away, that when they are sought for they shall not be found, and who are saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: or in other words, though they are "Israel after the flesh", 1Co_10:18, yet not after the Spirit; though they are by nation Israelites, they are not Israelites "indeed", as Nathanael was, Joh_1:47; they are Jews outwardly, not inwardly; they have not all principles of grace, uprightness, and sincerity in them: now to these spiritual Israelites, or seed of Abraham, were the word of God, the promises of God concerning spiritual and eternal things made, and upon these they had their effect; and therefore it could not be said that the word of God had taken none effect; though the whole body of Israel after the flesh were cut off and rejected. Some copies, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, "who are Israelites"; and the Ethiopic version, "they are not all Israel who came out of Egypt".



Clarke

Abraham is the father of many nations; and his seed is not only that which is of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham, Rom_4:16, Rom_4:17. The Gentiles were included in the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Jews; and therefore the Jews have no exclusive right to the blessings of God’s kingdom.


Barnes

Not all Israel - Not all the descendants of Jacob have the true spirit of Israelites, or are Jews in the scriptural sense of the term; see the note at Rom_2:28-29.


Wesley

The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; and this is no way contrary to his word. Nay, he hath declared in his word, both by types and by express testimonies, that believers are accepted as the "children of the promise," while unbelievers are rejected, though they are "children after the flesh." All are not Israel - Not in the favour of God. Who are lineally descended of Israel.

timmyb
Jun 7th 2008, 04:41 PM
Let us establish what "all Israel" is from Paul's introductory remarks in Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”

Paul

but the Messiah doesn't make us the Israel that Paul is trying to tell us about in Romans 9.... There are two separate entities there... Gentiles don't become THE Israel... There is a difference there and that's what I want to find out.... not all of them are... but some of them are but what makes them Israel... keep in mind not all Israel is saved according to Romans 11:26 because we haven't seen ungodliness removed from Jacob...

BroRog
Jun 7th 2008, 05:23 PM
Only because we've made it so. When you boil it down to one people, both Jew and Gentile, all saved by the same death of Christ on the cross, it becomes quite simple.

I agree with you Luke. And it is simple. If the question is, "Is God granting justification and redemption to both Jews and Gentiles alike?" The answer is Yes.

The answer, however, gets slightly more complex if we ask, "So how is going working out history to accomplish what he wants to accomplish, especially in light of his prophetic word?"

This is where it gets interesting. :)

BroRog
Jun 7th 2008, 05:48 PM
Let us establish what "all Israel" is from Paul's introductory remarks in Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”

Paul

That's a good idea Paul. But let's not repeat the logical error others have. I typically explain the logic error this way.

The error is one of identity in which it is assumed that if a = b, then b = a, which is true as long as 'a' and 'b' are in the same category. But if 'a' and 'b' are NOT in the same category then they are not always equal.

For instance if we say, "all yellows are colors", can we also say, "all colors are yellows?" No, this doesn't make sense. While all yellows are colors, it isn't also true that all colors are yellows. Some might be reds, or blues, or greens. So 'b' doesn't always equal 'a' when a = b if the categories of 'a' and 'b' are different.

The same can be said of Paul's point that all in Israel are children of promise. To say that all in Israel are children of promise is not the same thing as saying all the children of promise are Israel.

Also notice that Paul has NOT eliminated physical descent from being a valid category for the Israel of the promise. The comparison Paul makes is between two physical children of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac. Both of these boys are biological children of Abraham. The difference between them is that Isaac is a child of promise and Ishmael was not. In other words, Paul's point is to say, among the biological children of Abraham, only Isaac qualifies as being a child of God. He makes the same point with Jacob and Esau. Between the Biological children of Isaac, Jacob is the child of promise, not Esau.

So you see, Paul hasn't eliminated biology as an aspect of being an Israelite of the promise to Israel. He merely points out that among the chosen people, the sons of Jacob, God has promised to do something with a nation consisting entirely of children of promise.

wpm
Jun 7th 2008, 09:15 PM
but the Messiah doesn't make us the Israel that Paul is trying to tell us about in Romans 9.... There are two separate entities there... Gentiles don't become THE Israel... There is a difference there and that's what I want to find out.... not all of them are... but some of them are but what makes them Israel... keep in mind not all Israel is saved according to Romans 11:26 because we haven't seen ungodliness removed from Jacob...

There are 2 entities: true Israel and natural Israel. The first carries merit and eternal life, the second carries no special spiritual favour.

A saved Jew is no different than a saved Gentile - both are chosen of God.

A lost Jew is no different than a lost Gentile - they are both of their father the devil.

There are indeed 2 entities in Israel, like every other nation -saved and lost.

Paul

Saved7
Jun 8th 2008, 02:45 AM
Always wondered this. Seems to me to be the same thing, but pretty much no one agrees with me. I want to study it a little, so some different views from different people will give me a starting point, a point of reference. My own view might be skewed all by itself.


Not sure what you are looking for, but I can say this...there are a lot of similarities in the OT with Israel and her behaviour and lack of faith and holieness, the church....kind of frightening how much the church is like Israel of old.

BroRog
Jun 8th 2008, 05:18 PM
There are 2 entities: true Israel and natural Israel. The first carries merit and eternal life, the second carries no special spiritual favour.

A saved Jew is no different than a saved Gentile - both are chosen of God.

A lost Jew is no different than a lost Gentile - they are both of their father the devil.

There are indeed 2 entities in Israel, like every other nation -saved and lost.

Paul

Paul, do you have scriptural support for your two Israel theory?

Naphal
Jun 8th 2008, 10:52 PM
Paul, do you have scriptural support for your two Israel theory?


He already posted it:

Originally Posted by wpm http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1664135#post1664135)
Let us establish what "all Israel" is from Paul's introductory remarks in Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”


Not all that is considered Israel is Israel and Paul further continues by saying the children of the flesh (that's Jews born as Jews) are the children of the flesh and are not the children of God which is now defined differently than by the flesh. This means no one is born into Israel anymore as flesh does not give one "citizenship" to Israel/the children of God.

BroRog
Jun 9th 2008, 12:16 AM
Not all that is considered Israel is Israel and Paul further continues by saying the children of the flesh (that's Jews born as Jews) are the children of the flesh and are not the children of God which is now defined differently than by the flesh. This means no one is born into Israel anymore as flesh does not give one "citizenship" to Israel/the children of God.

Yes, I'm challenging that interpretation because it does not fit the context of Romans 9. The Apostle does not say there are two Israels as if the two exist at the same time.

WPM, Paul's interpretation totally misses the point in Romans 9:5, which seems to always be ignored in these discussions.

Naphal
Jun 9th 2008, 12:21 AM
Yes, I'm challenging that interpretation because it does not fit the context of Romans 9. The Apostle does not say there are two Israels as if the two exist at the same time.

That's exactly what it says. One is only according to the flesh and the other is not.




Gill

for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel; that is, they which are the descendants of the patriarch Jacob, whose name was Israel; or who are of the Israelitish nation, of the stock of Israel, belonging to that people; they are not all ?? ?????, "the Israel", by way of emphasis, as in Psa_25:22, or the "Israel of God", Gal_6:16, the Israel whom Jehovah the Father has chosen for a peculiar people; which Christ has redeemed from all their iniquities; which the Spirit of God calls with an holy calling, by special grace, to special privileges; the seed of Israel who are justified in Christ, whose iniquities are so pardoned and done away, that when they are sought for they shall not be found, and who are saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation: or in other words, though they are "Israel after the flesh", 1Co_10:18, yet not after the Spirit; though they are by nation Israelites, they are not Israelites "indeed", as Nathanael was, Joh_1:47; they are Jews outwardly, not inwardly; they have not all principles of grace, uprightness, and sincerity in them: now to these spiritual Israelites, or seed of Abraham, were the word of God, the promises of God concerning spiritual and eternal things made, and upon these they had their effect; and therefore it could not be said that the word of God had taken none effect; though the whole body of Israel after the flesh were cut off and rejected. Some copies, and the Vulgate Latin version, read, "who are Israelites"; and the Ethiopic version, "they are not all Israel who came out of Egypt".



Clarke

Abraham is the father of many nations; and his seed is not only that which is of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abraham, Rom_4:16, Rom_4:17. The Gentiles were included in the Abrahamic covenant as well as the Jews; and therefore the Jews have no exclusive right to the blessings of God’s kingdom.


Barnes

Not all Israel - Not all the descendants of Jacob have the true spirit of Israelites, or are Jews in the scriptural sense of the term; see the note at Rom_2:28-29.


Wesley

The sum is, God accepts all believers, and them only; and this is no way contrary to his word. Nay, he hath declared in his word, both by types and by express testimonies, that believers are accepted as the "children of the promise," while unbelievers are rejected, though they are "children after the flesh." All are not Israel - Not in the favour of God. Who are lineally descended of Israel.




There are more scriptures that deal with this:

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called the uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel & strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are NO LONGER STRANGERS and FOREIGNERS, but FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints and members of the household of God,

When a gentile becomes a "fellow citizen" with a Christian Jew he is an Israelite just as the Jew is. On the flip side, Jews that do not believe in Christ are cast out and are no longer "citizens" of Israel.

wpm
Jun 9th 2008, 12:39 AM
Paul, do you have scriptural support for your two Israel theory?

Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”

It is important to note that there are two Israels mentioned here – namely natural and spiritual Israel. What Paul is thus saying here is: “they are not all (spiritual) Israel, which are of (natural) Israel.”

Natural Israel is the natural inhabitants or nationals of the physical nation of Israel.
Spiritual Israel is the spiritual inhabitants or nationals of the spiritual nation of Israel – the Church – they are the elect of God throughout all time, through faith.

That explains why in one breath Jesus said to the Christ-rejecting Jews “I know that ye are Abraham's seed” (John 8:37) yet in the next “If ye were Abraham's children” (in John 8:39). He was confirming that whilst they were assuredly of the physical lineage of Abraham, they were not of the spiritual lineage of Abraham. They were therefore not the true sons of Abraham. Only born again believers reside there.

Romans 8:8-9 explains this, saying, “they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit (pneumatic), if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

Paul

BroRog
Jun 9th 2008, 03:59 AM
That's exactly what it says. One is only according to the flesh and the other is not.


I would like to call your attention to the fact that the Apostle does NOT use the phrase "Israel according to the flesh." Israel is a corporate entity consisting of individuals, and for this reason, the Apostle speaks of "children of the flesh" and "kinsmen according to the flesh", but never "Israel according to the flesh".

I take note of the fact that Gill makes the same mistake in the passage you cite here when he confuses the distinction between the corporate and the individual.


in other words, though they are "Israel after the flesh", 1Co_10:18, yet not after the Spirit; though they are by nation Israelites, they are not Israelites "indeed", as Nathanael was, John 1:47; they are Jews outwardly, not inwardly;

While introducing the concept "Israel after the flesh" into 1Cor.10:18 where none exists, he confuses the distinction between Israel as a nation and individual Jews, whom he refers to as "Jews outwardly." Secondly, John Gill misunderstands the Apostles' concern that God's word not fail, having not properly understood the promise at issue, in which the prophet announces that God will save "each man and his neighbor". A remnant does not comprise "each man and his neighbor as John supposes.

The citation from Clarke misses the point entirely, as if Paul's concern was the universal application of the Gospel to the Gentiles, rather than the real concern that God would fail to keep his promise to the House of Judah and the House of Israel, each man and his neighbor.

The Barnes citation refers to Romans 2:28-29, which speaks of an individual Jew and has nothing at all to do with the corporate entity Israel.

Wesley also misses the Apostles' concern that God's promise to the corporate Israel will fail, instead imposing a Jew/Gentile debate into a passage where it doesn't belong.


There are more scriptures that deal with this:

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called the uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel & strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:19 Now, therefore, you are NO LONGER STRANGERS and FOREIGNERS, but FELLOW CITIZENS with the saints and members of the household of God,

When a gentile becomes a "fellow citizen" with a Christian Jew he is an Israelite just as the Jew is. On the flip side, Jews that do not believe in Christ are cast out and are no longer "citizens" of Israel.



The citation from Ephesians is making the opposite point. In this passage, the Apostle declares that a Gentile does NOT need to become a citizen of Israel to gain access to God. And though he says we are "fellow citizens" with the saints, he is not saying we are fellow "Israelite" citizens. He unites the citizens under Christ, rather than with circumcision or temple observance.

BroRog
Jun 9th 2008, 04:02 AM
Romans 9:6-8, which confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”

It is important to note that there are two Israels mentioned here – namely natural and spiritual Israel. What Paul is thus saying here is: “they are not all (spiritual) Israel, which are of (natural) Israel.”

Natural Israel is the natural inhabitants or nationals of the physical nation of Israel.
Spiritual Israel is the spiritual inhabitants or nationals of the spiritual nation of Israel – the Church – they are the elect of God throughout all time, through faith.

That explains why in one breath Jesus said to the Christ-rejecting Jews “I know that ye are Abraham's seed” (John 8:37) yet in the next “If ye were Abraham's children” (in John 8:39). He was confirming that whilst they were assuredly of the physical lineage of Abraham, they were not of the spiritual lineage of Abraham. They were therefore not the true sons of Abraham. Only born again believers reside there.

Romans 8:8-9 explains this, saying, “they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit (pneumatic), if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

Paul

Paul, your citations only serve to prove what the Apostle has said concerning the spiritual disposition of individual Jews. The phrases "children of the flesh" and "children of God" speak to individuals within the nation of Israel, not two different "Israels".

Naphal
Jun 9th 2008, 04:09 AM
I take note of the fact that Gill makes the same mistake in the passage you cite here when he confuses the distinction between the corporate and the individual.



While introducing the concept "Israel after the flesh" into 1Cor.10:18 where none exists, he confuses the distinction between Israel as a nation and individual Jews, whom he refers to as "Jews outwardly."



Secondly, John Gill misunderstands the Apostles' concern that God's word not fail, having not properly understood the promise at issue, in which the prophet announces that God will save "each man and his neighbor".



The citation from Clarke misses the point entirely, as if Paul's concern was the universal application of the Gospel to the Gentiles, rather than the real concern that God would fail to keep his promise to the House of Judah and the House of Israel, each man and his neighbor.



The Barnes citation refers to Romans 2:28-29, which speaks of an individual Jew and has nothing at all to do with the corporate entity Israel.


Wesley also misses the Apostles' concern that God's promise to the corporate Israel will fail, instead imposing a Jew/Gentile debate into a passage where it doesn't belong.


So all these great men are completely wrong and you are right? While that is technically possible, it is highly improbable. I don't believe any of these men, nor myself, confuse, miss, misunderstand any of this.

BroRog
Jun 9th 2008, 04:13 AM
So all these great men are completely wrong and you are right? While that is technically possible, it is highly improbable. I don't believe any of these men, nor myself, confuse, miss, misunderstand any of this.

I don't mean for this to sound confrontational. I really just want to make sure I am being clear. Do you not see a difference between a corporate entity and an individual?

Yukerboy
Jun 9th 2008, 04:33 AM
Romans 11:28-29 "As far as the gospel is concerned, they (descendants of Jacob?) are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable."

This says to me that God has elected and called all of Israel and even though they are enemies as far as the gospel is conserned, they are brethern as far as election is concerned because of who their fathers were, because God's gifts (everlasting life) and his call cannot be reversed.

Yuke

wpm
Jun 9th 2008, 04:45 AM
Paul, your citations only serve to prove what the Apostle has said concerning the spiritual disposition of individual Jews. The phrases "children of the flesh" and "children of God" speak to individuals within the nation of Israel, not two different "Israels".

There are indeed two Israels in view in Romans 9:6-8. There is natural Israel (the children of the flesh), and true Israel "the children of God" or "the children of the promise.” The later is spiritual Israel - the elect.

I don't see that you would come to any other conclusion. This is expressly in the text.

Paul

wpm
Jun 9th 2008, 04:48 AM
This says to me that God has elected and called all of Israel and even though they are enemies as far as the gospel is conserned, they are brethern as far as election is concerned because of who their fathers were, because God's gifts (everlasting life) and his call cannot be reversed.

Yuke

You are totally totally misreading this. This is a classic Dispensation error. Romans 11:28 addresses this saying, speaking of natural Israel first, “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

These two groups have two different standings. Paul is not saying that the Christ-rejecting Jews “are beloved for the fathers' sakes,” no. Plainly, the overall rebellious nation of Israel is depicted here as being “enemies” of “the Gospel.” However, the elect Israelis ("the election") are different, those that are born again of the Spirit of God – they “are beloved for the fathers' sakes.”

Every time we are faced with the term “the election” it is always carefully and strictly restricted to those that belong to Christ through faith. In the case of Israel, it refers to “the remnant” of natural Israel, or “them that turn from transgression in Jacob.” They alone are the elect; they alone are the recipients of “the election” of God. This in itself is a significant manifestation of the grace of God, since the Jews as a nation rejected their King; they rejected their Messiah. None of them deserved grace. God could have easily turned His back on every Jew after the crucifixion. However, because of their “fathers,” because of their love of God, He has continued to manifest His grace through a choice holy Israeli remnant, as He has also through a holy Gentile remnant – all being contained within the one “good olive tree.”

Paul

wpm
Jun 9th 2008, 04:58 AM
I would like to call your attention to the fact that the Apostle does NOT use the phrase "Israel according to the flesh." Israel is a corporate entity consisting of individuals, and for this reason, the Apostle speaks of "children of the flesh" and "kinsmen according to the flesh", but never "Israel according to the flesh".

I take note of the fact that Gill makes the same mistake in the passage you cite here when he confuses the distinction between the corporate and the individual.

While introducing the concept "Israel after the flesh" into 1Cor.10:18 where none exists,


What do you mean none exists? 1 Corinthians 10:18 says, "Israel after the flesh," how can you deny this?


he confuses the distinction between Israel as a nation and individual Jews, whom he refers to as "Jews outwardly."

The term Jews (plural) refers to the circumcision (and is synonymous in the NT with natural Israel). The apostle repeatedly showed that circumcision means aboslutely nothing today. There is no special favour upon men because of their ethenticity.


The citation from Ephesians is making the opposite point. In this passage, the Apostle declares that a Gentile does NOT need to become a citizen of Israel to gain access to God. And though he says we are "fellow citizens" with the saints, he is not saying we are fellow "Israelite" citizens. He unites the citizens under Christ, rather than with circumcision or temple observance.

Uhhh???? It is you that is twisting this around. Ephesians 2:11-13 confirms, “ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were (1) without Christ, (2) being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and (3) strangers from the covenants of promise, (4) having no hope, and (5) without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”

This reading makes a very powerful yet succinct assertion and one that should not be speedily overlooked. Speaking of the Ephesian believers, Paul says that they had been “in time past Gentiles in the flesh.” The clear intimation of this statement is that they are now no longer the uncircumcision. Notwithstanding, if God does not now view them as uncircumcised, what now were they? Those who were hitherto aliens and strangers to Almighty God, being outside of His intimate plan and purpose, have now graciously been “made nigh by the blood of Christ” and brought into a different arrangement. Through Calvary, the Gentile has been brought into a new dominion and therefore enjoys a new citizenship, with its consequential new benefits. The believing Gentile has been given real access to God and has now fully entered into:

· Christ
· The commonwealth of Israel
· The covenants of promise
· Spiritual hope
· Union with God in this present world

This passage is speaking of five distinct, yet inextricably linked, states of alienation that the Gentile believer once suffered before they received the glorious Gospel of Christ. Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five were graciously reversed for the Gentile believer through their surrender to Christ and their trust in "the blood of Christ." The Gentiles (as a collective whole) are hopelessly described as being “far off” / “without” / “strangers” and “aliens” from these aforementioned blessing before they received salvation.

The word rendered “commonwealth” in the King James Version is the Greek word politeia (Strong’s 4174) which simply means citizenship or community. We the Church of Jesus Christ today (those washed in the blood of the Lamb) have now graciously entered into “the citizenship of Israel” through the work of in Christ to believing Jews of all time and have become fellow citizens of the Israel of God today. We therefore enjoy the same spiritual hope the Cross. The text expressly says that “ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” We believing Gentiles have been unified and are made subject unto the same “covenants of promise.” God’s covenant changed from the old to new at the cross, removing the old arrangement and widened out the scope of the elect to embrace all nationalities equally. This was a progressive development in the plan of God. Rejection of God in the Old Testament meant rejection by God. The same applies today.

Ephesians 2:17-22 continues, saying, Christ “came and preached peace to you (Gentiles) which were afar off, and to them that were nigh (Israel). For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit”

The whole thrust of this passage is to show the oneness of the people of God Old and New Testament, Jew and Gentile. And to show their collective participation in all the same benefits and the same blessing.

It is worth noting that Paul uses the word politeia (Strong’s 4174) again in the above passage to describe the unitary nature of the people of God of all time. This time he prefixes the word with the Greek word sun (Strong’s 4862) – denoting union and togetherness. It is thus correctly interpreted “fellowcitizens” in the King James Version confirming how the New Testament Gentile have been brought into “the citizenship of Israel” with the saints of the Old economy.

Paul

Naphal
Jun 9th 2008, 05:15 AM
I don't mean for this to sound confrontational. I really just want to make sure I am being clear. Do you not see a difference between a corporate entity and an individual?

Certainly, and in the same vein, do you not see a difference between racial Israel and spiritual Israel?

BroRog
Jun 9th 2008, 02:30 PM
Certainly, and in the same vein, do you not see a difference between racial Israel and spiritual Israel?

I see a racial Israel that will be spiritual some day.

BroRog
Jun 9th 2008, 04:11 PM
There are indeed two Israels in view in Romans 9:6-8. There is natural Israel (the children of the flesh), and true Israel "the children of God" or "the children of the promise.” The later is spiritual Israel - the elect.

I don't see that you would come to any other conclusion. This is expressly in the text.

Paul


First, the Apostle continues his argument giving examples. From these examples we learn that he is NOT comparing children of the flesh with children of the promise as if these were two different categories. Rather, he explains that the "children of the flesh" is a larger category which also includes "children of promise."

He gives two comparisons: Ishmael with Isaac, and Jacob with Esau. In each comparison, both of the boys have the same father -- literally brothers. Between the two brothers Isaac and Ishmael, Isaac is a child of promise. Between Jacob and Esau, God chose Jacob before the boys were born. In any case, the apostle does not use these examples to establish "two Israels", but to establish that the Israel of the promise will consist of children of promise.

With regard to the structure of Romans 9:6, the focus is on Israel as a corporate entity and the question at hand is what type of individual will we find there?

If I say, "not all the children are in the pool", I am not also saying that there are two pools. Likewise, when the Apostle says that not all Israelites are of Israel, there is one Israel in view -- some Israelites are in it, others are not.

Why is this important? When you suggest that there are two Israels, you imply, I think, that the two Israels are contemporary with each other. The Apostle's point, I think, looks at the Israel in Jeremiah 31 to say that the Israel of Jeremiah 31 will consist entirely of children of promise.

BroRog
Jun 9th 2008, 04:36 PM
What do you mean none exists? 1 Corinthians 10:18 says, "Israel after the flesh," how can you deny this?



The term Jews (plural) refers to the circumcision (and is synonymous in the NT with natural Israel). The apostle repeatedly showed that circumcision means aboslutely nothing today. There is no special favour upon men because of their ethenticity.



Uhhh???? It is you that is twisting this around. Ephesians 2:11-13 confirms, “ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were (1) without Christ, (2) being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and (3) strangers from the covenants of promise, (4) having no hope, and (5) without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”

This reading makes a very powerful yet succinct assertion and one that should not be speedily overlooked. Speaking of the Ephesian believers, Paul says that they had been “in time past Gentiles in the flesh.” The clear intimation of this statement is that they are now no longer the uncircumcision. Notwithstanding, if God does not now view them as uncircumcised, what now were they? Those who were hitherto aliens and strangers to Almighty God, being outside of His intimate plan and purpose, have now graciously been “made nigh by the blood of Christ” and brought into a different arrangement. Through Calvary, the Gentile has been brought into a new dominion and therefore enjoys a new citizenship, with its consequential new benefits. The believing Gentile has been given real access to God and has now fully entered into:

· Christ
· The commonwealth of Israel
· The covenants of promise
· Spiritual hope
· Union with God in this present world

This passage is speaking of five distinct, yet inextricably linked, states of alienation that the Gentile believer once suffered before they received the glorious Gospel of Christ. Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five were graciously reversed for the Gentile believer through their surrender to Christ and their trust in "the blood of Christ." The Gentiles (as a collective whole) are hopelessly described as being “far off” / “without” / “strangers” and “aliens” from these aforementioned blessing before they received salvation.

The word rendered “commonwealth” in the King James Version is the Greek word politeia (Strong’s 4174) which simply means citizenship or community. We the Church of Jesus Christ today (those washed in the blood of the Lamb) have now graciously entered into “the citizenship of Israel” through the work of in Christ to believing Jews of all time and have become fellow citizens of the Israel of God today. We therefore enjoy the same spiritual hope the Cross. The text expressly says that “ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” We believing Gentiles have been unified and are made subject unto the same “covenants of promise.” God’s covenant changed from the old to new at the cross, removing the old arrangement and widened out the scope of the elect to embrace all nationalities equally. This was a progressive development in the plan of God. Rejection of God in the Old Testament meant rejection by God. The same applies today.

Ephesians 2:17-22 continues, saying, Christ “came and preached peace to you (Gentiles) which were afar off, and to them that were nigh (Israel). For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit”

The whole thrust of this passage is to show the oneness of the people of God Old and New Testament, Jew and Gentile. And to show their collective participation in all the same benefits and the same blessing.

It is worth noting that Paul uses the word politeia (Strong’s 4174) again in the above passage to describe the unitary nature of the people of God of all time. This time he prefixes the word with the Greek word sun (Strong’s 4862) – denoting union and togetherness. It is thus correctly interpreted “fellowcitizens” in the King James Version confirming how the New Testament Gentile have been brought into “the citizenship of Israel” with the saints of the Old economy.

Paul

I disagree with your interpretation, which identifies five distinct states of alienation. Rather, the Apostle reminds the Ephesians that they were without Christ for four (4) reasons. They didn't know about Christ because they were far away from Israel and had no knowledge of him or God's purposes.

The solution to this problem was to send an Apostle TO THEM.

And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

The preaching of Christ is what brought Christ "near" to them, which in turn, brought them near to God.

Paul isn't saying that he brought them to Christ by making them citizens of Israel. When he refers to the Ephesians as fellow citizens of the saints, he isn't speaking literally as if the wall of separation had been literally torn down. He is speaking metaphorically about a reality that goes deeper than national boundaries.

things missing from the Gentiles "graciously reversed."

five were graciously reversed

wpm
Jun 9th 2008, 08:53 PM
First, the Apostle continues his argument giving examples. From these examples we learn that he is NOT comparing children of the flesh with children of the promise as if these were two different categories. Rather, he explains that the "children of the flesh" is a larger category which also includes "children of promise."

He gives two comparisons: Ishmael with Isaac, and Jacob with Esau. In each comparison, both of the boys have the same father -- literally brothers. Between the two brothers Isaac and Ishmael, Isaac is a child of promise. Between Jacob and Esau, God chose Jacob before the boys were born. In any case, the apostle does not use these examples to establish "two Israels", but to establish that the Israel of the promise will consist of children of promise.

With regard to the structure of Romans 9:6, the focus is on Israel as a corporate entity and the question at hand is what type of individual will we find there?

If I say, "not all the children are in the pool", I am not also saying that there are two pools. Likewise, when the Apostle says that not all Israelites are of Israel, there is one Israel in view -- some Israelites are in it, others are not.

Why is this important? When you suggest that there are two Israels, you imply, I think, that the two Israels are contemporary with each other. The Apostle's point, I think, looks at the Israel in Jeremiah 31 to say that the Israel of Jeremiah 31 will consist entirely of children of promise.

So, non-believers are not Israelis?

Paul

John146
Jun 9th 2008, 09:39 PM
John and Naphal,

don't get arrogant toward unsaved Israel... they will be the rock upon which you will stumble if you are not careful

I'm not arrogant toward unsaved Israel at all. God is not a respecter of persons, so I don't want to be, either. I am just as concerned with the unsaved in Israel as I am with the unsaved throughout the world. They all equally need to hear the gospel so that they can be saved.

wpm
Jun 9th 2008, 10:01 PM
the Apostle reminds the Ephesians that they were without Christ for four (4) reasons.

No, that is your version. I prefer the biblical rendering.

Ephesians 2:11-13 confirms, “ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were (1) without Christ, (2) being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and (3) strangers from the covenants of promise, (4) having no hope, and (5) without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”

There is clearly five distinct states of alienation that epitomised the mass of unbelieving Gentiles. I don't know how you can't see this. Your re-writing of this passage must be for the sole purpose of excluding the NT saints from the citizenship of Israel. Regardless, they have been brought nigh into it through the blood of Jesus.



They didn't know about Christ because they were far away from Israel and had no knowledge of him or God's purposes.



That is only part of the story. They were also not citizens of Israel, participants of the covenants of promise, or did they enter into spiritual hope or union with God. But that all changed since and through the cross-work. They have now been brought nigh into these covenant blessings.



The solution to this problem was to send an Apostle TO THEM.

And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

The preaching of Christ is what brought Christ "near" to them, which in turn, brought them near to God.

Paul isn't saying that he brought them to Christ by making them citizens of Israel. When he refers to the Ephesians as fellow citizens of the saints, he isn't speaking literally as if the wall of separation had been literally torn down. He is speaking metaphorically about a reality that goes deeper than national boundaries.


The Old Testament saints (the redeemed of God) are depicted here as those that “were nigh” (v17) in the old dispensation. This described their spiritual standing before God. Those that are saved are classed as “nigh” whereas those that are strangers to grace are recognized as “afar off.” So, what applied to the elect of God in the past must (if we are consistent) be similarly be related to believers today under this new arangement, as the phraseology is exactly the same. This all comes through the cross.

What therefore pertains to the Old Testament saints equally pertains to the New Testament saints. All have been made nigh unto the same promises, blessing and hope. We can’t differentiate. After all, this great truth is applied to the redeemed either side of the cross in this narrative. This creates a very definite problem for Dispensationalists in that they are forced to acknowledge that the New Testament redeemed have been brought into the citizenship of Israel. Seeing this, they attempt to dilute the meaning and worth of being “made nigh.” Notwithstanding, by doing this, Dispensationalism must equally dilute the significance of the Old Testament believers also being citizens of Israel – because they are described as being nigh.

One could respond to the Dispensationalist that the Old Testament Jews were not really citizens of Israel, unified to Christ participants of the covenants of promise, or did they enter into spiritual hope or union with God. Of course this is preposterous. This reading does not suggest they were merely brought close, but that they were active recipients/participants in these spiritual blessings.

To be nigh to God denotes salvation. This is seen in other passages. Scripture shows that a sinner needs to take the humble place of penitence before he can participate in all the many blessing God has reserved for the redeemed. James 4:7-8 instructs: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.”

Hebrews 7:18-19 confirms, “For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.”

Drawing nigh to God is depicted as experiencing Christ, His covenant and ultimately salvation. This is supported by the main narrative we are looking at. It says that “ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” Plainly, when someone comes to Jesus in salvation, the cross becomes the means of reconciliation to God and entry point into all the many blessing and benefits He has for men. Calvary secured spiritual relief for sinners. So, one’s participation in the aforementioned benefits denotes a spiritual identity with the cross. Therefore, we are looking about all the elect


things missing from the Gentiles "graciously reversed."

five were graciously reversed

Being "without Christ" is only reversed through experienced salvation and a real interest in the blood of Jesus Christ. The other four states of alienation are the same.

Paul

Naphal
Jun 9th 2008, 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naphal http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1665844#post1665844)
Certainly, and in the same vein, do you not see a difference between racial Israel and spiritual Israel?

I see a racial Israel that will be spiritual some day.


That is something that has occurred already for many Jews that are Christians but it wasn't what I asked.

BroRog
Jun 10th 2008, 03:08 AM
That is something that has occurred already for many Jews that are Christians but it wasn't what I asked.

Let me put it this way then, I understand your concepts. I just don't think they are Biblical.

BroRog
Jun 10th 2008, 03:11 AM
So, non-believers are not Israelis?

Paul

Israelis are Israelis whether they believe or not.

BroRog
Jun 10th 2008, 04:15 AM
I don't know how you can't see this. Your re-writing of this passage must be for the sole purpose of excluding the NT saints from the citizenship of Israel.Some of us come looking for the answers to OUR questions, rather than allowing the Apostle's arguments to develop the way he intends. In this case the Bible student must read this passage as if he or she is contemporaneous with the recipients of the letter, remembering that the Temple still stands and the wall of separation still stands, and that circumcision is still a requirement for entering into the commonwealth of Israel.

Before I go on, let's review the concept of equivocation.

A form of FALLACY where an ambiguity arises because a term or phrase has been used in two different senses within the one argument. (University of Aberdeen)

In this case, your interpretation forces the apostle to equivocate on the terms "Israel" and "citizen". That is, it relies on a change of meaning between the beginning of his point and the end.

For instance when the Apostle says, "you were . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel," he is using the term "Israel" to indicate the politically organized body under the theocracy of the Mosaic Law and the Mt. Sinai Covenant. He does not use the term "Israel" in any other sense in the passage. In fact, Ephesians 2:12 is the only place in the letter where the term occurs.

In his argument, he sets up a metaphor based on the fact that the Jews excluded Gentiles from access to the temple with a wall, which separated the Gentiles and the Jews, having a sign written on the wall that warned of severe punishment for any Gentile who entered beyond the barrier.

It is NOT true that a convert to Christianity was allowed to pass over to the Jewish side of the wall. The blood of Christ did not literally break down the wall of separation. Rather, the blood of Christ gave us access to God through the Spirit, which is a much better way to gain access to God. It's as if the wall had been torn down, even though a physical wall still remained.

The point he makes is to say that we have gained access to God without becoming a naturalized citizen of Israel. We didn't convert to Judaism, or become circumcised. We didn't agree to the Mt. Sinai Covenant or agree to live according to the Mosaic Law. All of these things were required in order to become an Israelite, but none of them are required to gain access to God through the blood of Jesus and the intercession of the Holy Spirit.

According to your interpretation, "Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five were graciously reversed for the Gentile believer through their surrender to Christ and their trust in "the blood of Christ." Let's focus on the one of these five which deals with the equivocation on the term "Israel."

If we put our car into "drive" and step on the gas, the engine will propel our vehicle forward for as long as we keep our foot on the gas. If we stop to put our gear into "reverse", the engine will propel our vehicle back to our original starting point. So when you suggest that God or Christ "reversed" the condition of Gentile exclusion "from the commonwealth of Israel" he must mean that Christ caused Gentiles to become citizens of Israel in the same sense he means it in 2:12, which is amplified in 2:14. But we know that conversion to Christianity did not make a Gentile into a citizen of Israel such that he or she was allowed to pass beyond the barrier. By saying the condition was reversed, you are saying that the Gentiles became naturalized citizens of Israel just like the Jews, which we know to be false.

Rather than asserting that God reversed the source of alienation, giving the Gentiles Israeli citizenship, Paul asserts that he made the two into a new man -- not a reversal of something old, but a new and different thing altogether. To be brought near, in his view, is not to be included as citizens of Israel but to be included in a new citizenship, which he does not name as Israel.

wpm
Jun 10th 2008, 05:13 AM
Israelis are Israelis whether they believe or not.

But you previously said:


If I say, "not all the children are in the pool", I am not also saying that there are two pools. Likewise, when the Apostle says that not all Israelites are of Israel, there is one Israel in view -- some Israelites are in it, others are not.


Now you are saying they are all in. I feel you are playing with words. The passage under discussion is saying: not all physical Israelis are true spiritual Israelis.

Paul

Naphal
Jun 10th 2008, 05:44 AM
Let me put it this way then, I understand your concepts. I just don't think they are Biblical.

I feel the same way.

wpm
Jun 10th 2008, 05:46 AM
In this case, your interpretation forces the apostle to equivocate on the terms "Israel" and "citizen". That is, it relies on a change of meaning between the beginning of his point and the end.

That is not true. The whole context is spiritual. It is speaking about spiritual blessings that were once focused upon one lone nation, but are now open to all nations equally.


For instance when the Apostle says, "you were . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel," he is using the term "Israel" to indicate the politically organized body under the theocracy of the Mosaic Law and the Mt. Sinai Covenant. He does not use the term "Israel" in any other sense in the passage. In fact, Ephesians 2:12 is the only place in the letter where the term occurs.

What authority do you have for categorically saying this apart from defending a partial theological position? Terms like circumcison, Jew, Israel and children of Abraham are used throughout the New Testament in both a natural and a spiritual sense. Context determines which understanding is proper. The New Testament in various places applies these Hebrewic terms in a spiritual sense to regenerated Gentiles. It is therefore not strange that Paul would employ the term "Israel" here to describe the New Testament redeemed Church.

What is more, the surrounding language (and therefore context) of Ephesians 2 shows that the writer is describing spiritual realities, not physical attainments. In fact, all 5 benefits that were once outside the grasp of the global Gentile community have now been opened to the same through the blood of Jesus. That is actually what the narrative is teaching.

Your concluding admission that this is the only use of the designation Israel proves that this is not taking the meaning out of context with any teaching on the physical nation. After all, this is the only mention of Israel in this book. The Israel he is speaking of (whether physical or spiritual) can only be established by the context of the reading and the wording around it. This we have seen is totally spiritual.



In his argument, he sets up a metaphor based on the fact that the Jews excluded Gentiles from access to the temple with a wall, which separated the Gentiles and the Jews, having a sign written on the wall that warned of severe punishment for any Gentile who entered beyond the barrier.

It is NOT true that a convert to Christianity was allowed to pass over to the Jewish side of the wall. The blood of Christ did not literally break down the wall of separation. Rather, the blood of Christ gave us access to God through the Spirit, which is a much better way to gain access to God. It's as if the wall had been torn down, even though a physical wall still remained.

The point he makes is to say that we have gained access to God without becoming a naturalized citizen of Israel. We didn't convert to Judaism, or become circumcised. We didn't agree to the Mt. Sinai Covenant or agree to live according to the Mosaic Law. All of these things were required in order to become an Israelite, but none of them are required to gain access to God through the blood of Jesus and the intercession of the Holy Spirit.


You are again totally reinterpreting Paul's words in order to let Dispensationalism fit. You are also saying the complete opposite to what Paul is instructing. You are rebuilding the wall that Paul is saying is demolished. You are dividing two believing peoples that are now one.

Again, I go with the scriptural wording that totally rebuts your concept: the cross "hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us."

Here it is: (1) we are one with the old testiment saints. (2) Contrary to what you say, Calvary has broken down the dividing wall. This is why we have become fellowcitizens with the OT saints as true Israelis, not merely natural ones, which carries no merit with God today.

Ephesians 3:6 says, “the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.”

Not only do we enjoy the same spirital Israeli passports, but we are one body with these OT saints.




According to your interpretation, "Paul the Apostle makes it clear that all five were graciously reversed for the Gentile believer through their surrender to Christ and their trust in "the blood of Christ." Let's focus on the one of these five which deals with the equivocation on the term "Israel."

If we put our car into "drive" and step on the gas, the engine will propel our vehicle forward for as long as we keep our foot on the gas. If we stop to put our gear into "reverse", the engine will propel our vehicle back to our original starting point. So when you suggest that God or Christ "reversed" the condition of Gentile exclusion "from the commonwealth of Israel" he must mean that Christ caused Gentiles to become citizens of Israel in the same sense he means it in 2:12, which is amplified in 2:14. But we know that conversion to Christianity did not make a Gentile into a citizen of Israel such that he or she was allowed to pass beyond the barrier. By saying the condition was reversed, you are saying that the Gentiles became naturalized citizens of Israel just like the Jews, which we know to be false.

I'm afraid your illustration just doesn't remotely equate. It is best keeping to Scripture. If you can't prove it from there, an invented parable will not do it. You are still thinking in a physical sense. This is spiritual language. This is where you are missing Paul's import. Romans 2:25-29 supports this conclusion, saying, “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit (pneumatic).”

Here it is! This reading couldn’t be clearer. It starts off with Paul establishing an absolute fact: physical circumcision or Jewishness means nothing. This cannot in anyway be denied. It is clear and definite. The whole thrust of this passage then surrounds Paul determining of who the real circumcision (or Jews) are. Is it natural Jews or spiritual Jews? Is it the physically circumcised or spiritually circumcised? This was an obvious issue in the early church with the move from the old to the new arrangement. The natural Jew based salvation and the favour of God upon his physical birthright and obedience to a set of religious rules, regulations and ordinances. One of the most prominent signs of esteem the Jew advanced was physical circumcision. Paul here – a Hebrew of the Hebrews – blows this fallacy apart and explains what a true Jew is and what circumcision is today under the new covenant.

No one can deny that the audience that is being directly instructed here is primarily Roman Gentiles. This is evidenced by the wording of the opening chapter of this epistle. Whilst it is addressed to “all that be in Rome” that are “beloved of God, called to be saints,” we discover when we read through the opening intro a bit that this audience is predominately Gentile. This of course fits with its location in Gentile Rome. Romans 1:13 says, “I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.” Whilst there may have been Jews in his audience, he seems to be mainly speaking to Gentiles. That is not to say there are places that he speaks of Jews.

In this reading Paul reveals a profound spiritual truth how physically uncircumcised Gentiles are viewed as the circumcised, and physically circumcised Jews are viewed as uncircumcised. This seems contradictory and mistaken, after all Jews are Jews and Gentiles are Gentiles. In a natural sense this is true, but in a spiritual sense it isn’t. Paul goes on to prove this. He shows how the title “Jew” and “circumcision” are choice spiritual titles that relate to the redeemed of God. It is not that they don’t have natural meanings but that the natural sense carries no special merit with God: “circumcision verily profiteth.” What he is highlighting is: it is their spiritual significance that really matters.


Rather than asserting that God reversed the source of alienation, giving the Gentiles Israeli citizenship, Paul asserts that he made the two into a new man -- not a reversal of something old, but a new and different thing altogether. To be brought near, in his view, is not to be included as citizens of Israel but to be included in a new citizenship, which he does not name as Israel.

You are allowing the 4 things that fit your theology and discarding the Israeli citizenship element as if it wasn't there. I suspect if you were to acknowledge these 5 blessings are linked and spiritual, it would pull down the whole Dispy edifice. Until you can prove that it is proper to divorce one element from the five and discard it as if it is not intergral to the other 4 spiritual elements then we can only reject your tinkering with Scripture.

Paul

Merton
Jun 10th 2008, 06:14 AM
In this case, your interpretation forces the apostle to equivocate on the terms "Israel" and "citizen". That is, it relies on a change of meaning between the beginning of his point and the end.

For instance when the Apostle says, "you were . . . excluded from the commonwealth of Israel," he is using the term "Israel" to indicate the politically organized body under the theocracy of the Mosaic Law and the Mt. Sinai Covenant. He does not use the term "Israel" in any other sense in the passage. In fact, Ephesians 2:12 is the only place in the letter where the term occurs.----------------------------------------------


The point he makes is to say that we have gained access to God without becoming a naturalized citizen of Israel. We didn't convert to Judaism, or become circumcised. We didn't agree to the Mt. Sinai Covenant or agree to live according to the Mosaic Law. All of these things were required in order to become an Israelite, but none of them are required to gain access to God through the blood of Jesus and the intercession of the Holy Spirit.




er Rog,


Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition betweenus;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:


Both those of the LAW and the gentile who believe in Christ, are united in the commonwealth of Israel who are NOT strangers to the covenants of promise.

The commonwealth of Israel mentioned in Eph chapter 2 to which the nations believers have come nigh by the blood of Christ, is NOT the
"the politically organized body under the theocracy of the Mosaic Law and the Mt. Sinai Covenant."

There is an "Israel of God" which transcends all covenants and nations of a temporary nature as the covenant given at My Sinai was.

The expression "all Israel will be saved" is not referring to a nation of this world but to all of the saved from all nations who all have faith in Christ individually, who all together are one nation.





Merton.

Merton
Jun 10th 2008, 06:54 AM
Rog,


Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:


Not all of Israel (due to their ancestory from Israel who was Jacob) are of the Israel of God, inheritors of the promises.

Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, arethey all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.


This is not making a flesh distinction between the children of Isaac and the children of Ishmael for both the sons of Isaac and the sons of Ishmael are able to be members of the "Israel of God" through faith in Christ.


Rom.9:7 is teaching us that the children of promise are not so because of the works of man nor because of their flesh relationship to Abraham, but because of Gods promises and those who believe them and therefore Him concerning His Son.

Rom 9:8 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.


Though this states that the children of the flesh are not the children of God, one may take that in two ways, for we know that being a child of Abraham by natural birth does not disqualify them from inclusion in the promises of God but by that they are not included either.


So the verse more properly refers to the contrast between the unbelief shown in the works of man (Abraham with Hagar) and having faith in God that He will fulfill His promises without the works of man. (for one is the enemy of the other).---


Rom 9:11 (For thechildren being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)


So the idea that the promises of God concerning His Israel are solely to the children of Israel of the flesh who believe in Christ is entirely wrong.


The Bible speaks of His own as the children of Zion, that is of the Heavenly City, whether they be mortal or immortal, Jew or Gentile, for they are Gods Israel the apple of his eye, the elect beloved for the fathers sake.--


Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Gal 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Merton.

seamus414
Jun 10th 2008, 02:47 PM
Always wondered this. Seems to me to be the same thing, but pretty much no one agrees with me. I want to study it a little, so some different views from different people will give me a starting point, a point of reference. My own view might be skewed all by itself.


I have to admit that I have not read through this thread so I apologize for repeating posts or missing poinrs and rehashing a discussion but this thread is 7 pages long!

Anyway, my take on it:

The Church is not Israel the CHurch is the culmination of Israel. The Scriptures demonstrate a series of unfolding and ever expanding covenants that God makes with: (1) Adam; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Jacob (5) Moses; (6) David; (7) the Apostles. In succession that is: (1) a man; (2) a family; (3) a lineage; (4) a tribe; (5) a nation (6) a kingdom; (7) the world.

Each covenant expands its scope to include more people however that does not mean the parties to the previous covenants lose their individual identity or the terms of their covenants are somehow void.

BroRog
Jun 10th 2008, 07:50 PM
But you previously said:



Now you are saying they are all in. I feel you are playing with words. The passage under discussion is saying: not all physical Israelis are true spiritual Israelis.

Paul

Let me ask you this, has the following passage been fulfilled?

31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."



The promise is to "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." I dare say this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled.

BroRog
Jun 10th 2008, 08:58 PM
That is not true. The whole context is spiritual. It is speaking about spiritual blessings that were once focused upon one lone nation, but are now open to all nations equally.

Well, I was afraid you were going to say that, which is why I attempted to bring your attention to the fact that Paul continues to make his point by reminding them about the separation wall. The separation wall is not spiritual, it's literal and physical. If the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" is somehow figurative, then his mention of the wall is totally irrelevant and pointless. Since I do not think that the Apostle is being pointless, his reference to the commonwealth of Israel is to be taken in its normal sense.

The apostle does not give a hint in the text that he has coined the term "commonwealth of Israel" as a figure of speech. You are reading that into the text.


What authority do you have for categorically saying this apart from defending a partial theological position?

It isn't a matter of authority; it's a matter of following a writer's chain of thought. It's not uncommon for an author such as the Apostle to coin words and phrases, applying meanings that venture beyond the dictionary definition as you suggest. However, when an author coins a word or phrase, he or she will alert the reader in some way. Since we find no such hint, we take the passage at face value. It is certainly true that the Ephesians were not citizens of Israel. They were citizens of Ephesus.


Your concluding admission that this is the only use of the designation Israel proves that this is not taking the meaning out of context with any teaching on the physical nation.


Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. I wasn't trying to prove that the designation "Israel" must be taken literally. I wrongly assumed you would grant that point. But I see from your last post that you do not take the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" in it's natural sense as I assumed everyone did.


You are again totally reinterpreting Paul's words in order to let Dispensationalism fit. You are also saying the complete opposite to what Paul is instructing. You are rebuilding the wall that Paul is saying is demolished. You are dividing two believing peoples that are now one.

You will need to explain this further because you merely assert that my view divides two believing peoples. This, of course, is the farthest thing from what I said.


I'm afraid your illustration just doesn't remotely equate. It is best keeping to Scripture. If you can't prove it from there, an invented parable will not do it.


It's not a parable, it's an illustration, which intends to highlight your concept of "reversal." If that concept no longer works for you, then don't use it. :)


You are still thinking in a physical sense. This is spiritual language.


Well, I just don't feel free to wily-nilly decide for myself what is spiritual language and what isn't. If the Apostle had intended to use "commonwealth of Israel" as a figure of speech, he would have made that clear in the passage.

You mentioned the figurative use of the term circumcision and so I can use that as an example.

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, Col. 2:11

In this passage from Colossians, the apostle is using the term "circumcision" as a figure of speech and he alerts us to that fact by stating that the circumcision is "made without hands." Normally, circumcision is a physical cutting of the skin done by a father to his son. But a circumcision made "without hands" is figurative language, which works as an illustration for the internal reality of the believer.

In the Ephesians passage, we have no such hint by the Apostle that he is using the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" as a figure of speech.


Here it is! This reading couldn’t be clearer. It starts off with Paul establishing an absolute fact: physical circumcision or Jewishness means nothing.


Where does he say "Jewishness means nothing"? He doesn't say that. In fact, two or three sentences later he says that being a Jew is an advantage with regard to knowing about God's oracles, which is the corollary to his point that the Ephesians didn't know anything about God's oracles since they were excluded from the commonwealth of Israel.


This cannot in anyway be denied. It is clear and definite. The whole thrust of this passage then surrounds Paul determining of who the real circumcision (or Jews) are. Is it natural Jews or spiritual Jews? Is it the physically circumcised or spiritually circumcised?


Here again you have returned the talk back to Jews as individuals, taking us away from the topic at hand, which is Israel as a nation. I agree that true Jews are circumcised of heart. I just don't accept the reflexive idea that all circumcised of heart are true Jews. Some are Gentiles too.


You are allowing the 4 things that fit your theology and discarding the Israeli citizenship element as if it wasn't there.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.


I suspect if you were to acknowledge these 5 blessings are linked and spiritual, it would pull down the whole Dispy edifice.

Who said I was a dispensationalist?

BroRog
Jun 10th 2008, 09:01 PM
er Rog,


Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition betweenus;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:


Both those of the LAW and the gentile who believe in Christ, are united in the commonwealth of Israel who are NOT strangers to the covenants of promise.

The commonwealth of Israel mentioned in Eph chapter 2 to which the nations believers have come nigh by the blood of Christ, is NOT the
"the politically organized body under the theocracy of the Mosaic Law and the Mt. Sinai Covenant."

There is an "Israel of God" which transcends all covenants and nations of a temporary nature as the covenant given at My Sinai was.

The expression "all Israel will be saved" is not referring to a nation of this world but to all of the saved from all nations who all have faith in Christ individually, who all together are one nation.





Merton.

Merton,

Do you also think Jeremiah 31:31-34 was fulfilled?

Naphal
Jun 10th 2008, 09:07 PM
The Church is not Israel the CHurch is the culmination of Israel.

Yet the definition does not contradict the first thought. The church is Israel and therefore is the culmination of Israel being the only true Israel since bloodlines no longer matter in this regard. It is spiritual Israel that matters with regard to salvation.





The Scriptures demonstrate a series of unfolding and ever expanding covenants that God makes with: (1) Adam; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Jacob (5) Moses; (6) David; (7) the Apostles. In succession that is: (1) a man; (2) a family; (3) a lineage; (4) a tribe; (5) a nation (6) a kingdom; (7) the world.

Each covenant expands its scope to include more people however that does not mean the parties to the previous covenants lose their individual identity or the terms of their covenants are somehow void.



But the Sinai covenant is now void and replaced. It was not expanded nor was it left in place with it's original peoples.


Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

seamus414
Jun 10th 2008, 09:31 PM
[quote=Naphal;1667846]Yet the definition does not contradict the first thought. The church is Israel and therefore is the culmination of Israel being the only true Israel since bloodlines no longer matter in this regard. It is spiritual Israel that matters with regard to salvation.

I disagree. Israel is Israel. No gentile (who is not a convert) belongs to "Israel". Merely because a New Covenant exists does not mean the parties to the Old Covenant no longer exist and the promises thereunder no longer have effect. The Old Covenant is a lesser and included contract to the New which still maintains its independence despite the existence of the New.

But the Sinai covenant is now void and replaced. It was not expanded nor was it left in place with it's original peoples.

The Sinai covenant is *not* void. It is still a legitimate covenant with promises to which God is bound. Indeed, if it were "void" Jesus would have no covenantial authority as the covenant that establishes who he is and what he is to do would be without authority as it is "void". The New Covenant is based upon the terms of the Old Covenant and without which the New has no real meaning. God's covenant is a slowly expanding covenant that expands the promises and expands the beneficiaries of those promises with each additional covenant.

Naphal
Jun 10th 2008, 10:04 PM
I disagree. Israel is Israel.

Yet what is written is "For they are not all Israel, which are Israel" so your statement cannot be true.



[QUOTE] No gentile (who is not a convert) belongs to "Israel".

Actually all gentiles in Christ belong to Israel and all Jews who are not in Christ do not belong to Israel. If you are not in Christ you are a spiritual gentile regardless of your bloodline.




Merely because a New Covenant exists does not mean the parties to the Old Covenant no longer exist and the promises thereunder no longer have effect.


The parties exist but the old covenant does not. It is the new covenant that now matters and applies.






The Old Covenant is a lesser and included contract to the New which still maintains its independence despite the existence of the New.

No, scripture is very clear the old cov. is not "included" or even in existence anylonger. It decayed and passed away, replaced by a better covenant.


The Sinai covenant is *not* void. It is still a legitimate covenant with promises to which God is bound.

Sorry, not according to God:



Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

A new covenant not according to the original.


Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The concept of the old covenant being added to and made better is simply incorrect. It was faulty and "made old" by God to the effect that it has "decayed" and in Paul's time it was "ready to vanish away" which by today it has. Amen!



Indeed, if it were "void" Jesus would have no covenantial authority as the covenant that establishes who he is and what he is to do would be without authority as it is "void".

Jesus voided the covenant when he died, instituting the new covenant.






The New Covenant is based upon the terms of the Old Covenant and without which the New has no real meaning.


No, scripture says the opposite of what you say:


Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.



God's covenant is a slowly expanding covenant that expands the promises and expands the beneficiaries of those promises with each additional covenant.

That does not come from the bible...

Merton
Jun 10th 2008, 11:33 PM
Merton,

Do you also think Jeremiah 31:31-34 was fulfilled?


Jer 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
Jer 31:28 And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.
Jer 31:29 In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.
Jer 31:30 But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shallbe the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Jer 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:
Jer 31:36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me forever.
Jer 31:37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.
Jer 31:38 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner.
Jer 31:39 And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.
Jer 31:40 And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shallbe holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more forever.



This is in process of being fully established.


Firstly, through God calling a people out of the nations to be His Heavenly rulers of New covenant Kings (prophets) and Priests during this age for the future reign of Christ with the resurrected saints over all remaining individuals of the nations who obey the word of the last witness which witness is delivered by the saints worthy of resurrection.


This only leaves us to know the identity of the children of Zion who are gathered to Christ while still mortal after the resurrection who are not left among the nations observing their gathering and in some cases assisting them in their journey who also revere Christ.



These things can only show that there are stages in salvation which also exist now in the Church as they have always been as it was with Israel who left Egypt which consisted of all who would believe the word of Moses regardless of their race, but of whom many fell along the way, some permanently and some temporarily, depending on the type of sins that they had committed.


Isa 29:19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
Isa 29:20 For the terrible one is brought to naught, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:
Isa 29:21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of naught.
Isa 29:22 Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.
Isa 29:23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.

The great multitude of Rev.ch 7, the children of Zion of Isaiah ch 49.


The nation born in one day AFTER the tribulation (at the end of the birth pangs)--Think about who conceives and has the birth pains.


Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut thewomb? saith thy God.
Isa 66:10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
Isa 66:11 That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.


Therefore the righteous nation of Israel revealed to the whole world after the resurrection consists of both resurrected saints and their mortal children (Rev.7)
Isaiah ch 35 EZ. chs 34-39. so that believers today who overcome have every right to the name of Israel---


Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.


Jer 33:25 Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, andif I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
Jer 33:26 Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed tobe rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

Merton.

wpm
Jun 11th 2008, 05:12 AM
Well, I was afraid you were going to say that, which is why I attempted to bring your attention to the fact that Paul continues to make his point by reminding them about the separation wall. The separation wall is not spiritual, it's literal and physical. If the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" is somehow figurative, then his mention of the wall is totally irrelevant and pointless. Since I do not think that the Apostle is being pointless, his reference to the commonwealth of Israel is to be taken in its normal sense.

Ephesians 2:14 confirms that whatever this wall between the Jew and Gentile is, it is now "broken down." How can this be anything other than a spiritual separation. It certainly isn't talking about a natural physical union between the Jew and Gentile. This has never been, is not and never will be. Jews are Jews, Gentiles are Gentiles. The cross was a spiritual transaction ordained to bring the believing Jew together with the believing Gentile - thus removing and previous barriers between both. It is expressly "broken down."


The apostle does not give a hint in the text that he has coined the term "commonwealth of Israel" as a figure of speech. You are reading that into the text.

Who said it was "a figure of speech"? It is a spiritual reference - big difference. I have shown you there are 2 Israels - one natural, one spiritual. True Isreal is spiritual.


It isn't a matter of authority; it's a matter of following a writer's chain of thought. It's not uncommon for an author such as the Apostle to coin words and phrases, applying meanings that venture beyond the dictionary definition as you suggest. However, when an author coins a word or phrase, he or she will alert the reader in some way. Since we find no such hint, we take the passage at face value. It is certainly true that the Ephesians were not citizens of Israel. They were citizens of Ephesus.

The whole passage is spiritual. It is talking about those that have experience new life through salvation. Please look at the context. Ephesians 2:1-9 proves, "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

This is talking about salvation. This is talking about a spiritual rsurrection. This is shoing the change that occurs when Christ comes into the life. It is talking about the conversion of Greek Gentiles.

Ephesians 2:11-16 continues, "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; nd that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."

This is talking about conversion. It is talking about the oneness of God's spiritual body (OT and NT) that have been made one through the blood of Christ. God had made "one new man" (the redeemed of all ages) from two (Jew and Gentile people). There is only "one body" not two as you argue. How can you understand this any other way? The context is blatantly spiritual. These are therefore spiritual realities and blessing that the penitent Gentile has now entered into to.

Ephesians 2:17-22 concludes, "And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."

This is clear spiritual language showing how the Jewish believer in the OT is now one with the Gentile believer in the NT!

Finally, they may have been natural citizens of Ephesus, but they were spiritual citizens of true Israel.


Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. I wasn't trying to prove that the designation "Israel" must be taken literally. I wrongly assumed you would grant that point. But I see from your last post that you do not take the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" in it's natural sense as I assumed everyone did.

Because it is speaking about our spiritual standing in Christ. The people of God have been brought into a hitherto alien condition/arrangement through the work of the cross and the unifying work of the Spirit. This is talking about the priviledges and new conditions that pertain to Gentile converts. To argue otherwise is to simply fight with Scripture.


Well, I just don't feel free to wily-nilly decide for myself what is spiritual language and what isn't. If the Apostle had intended to use "commonwealth of Israel" as a figure of speech, he would have made that clear in the passage.

I am not saying it is "figure of speech" but it is spiritual language.



You mentioned the figurative use of the term circumcision and so I can use that as an example.

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, Col. 2:11

In this passage from Colossians, the apostle is using the term "circumcision" as a figure of speech and he alerts us to that fact by stating that the circumcision is "made without hands." Normally, circumcision is a physical cutting of the skin done by a father to his son. But a circumcision made "without hands" is figurative language, which works as an illustration for the internal reality of the believer.

In the Ephesians passage, we have no such hint by the Apostle that he is using the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" as a figure of speech.


Paul explains in Philippians 3:3, speaking of the Church, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit (pneumatic), and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

This is a natural term exclusive to natural Jews that is spiritually related to the Gentile elect.

Romans 2:25-29 supports this, saying, “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit (pneumatic).”

This is a natural term exclusive to natural Jews that is spiritually related to the Gentile elect.

We are the true children of Abraham. This is also a spiritual designation. Galatians 3:7-9 explains, “they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen (or Gentiles) through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, (in Genesis 17:5) In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”

Verse 16 continues, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds (plural), as of many; but as of one (single), and to thy seed, which is Christ.”

The spiritual seed of Abraham is found solely today within the Church of Jesus Christ. It is they alone that are “blessed”and are now part ofthe eternal “promises made.” Significantly, natural Israel, which is after the flesh, is still overwhelmingly Christ-rejecting and therefore still outside of grace and of hope, and sadly bound as a people for a Christless hell. Only those Jews who place their faith in Christ can enter into salvation and into the spiritual lineage of their natural father Abraham.

Romans 4:11 says, “And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.”

Here again, the marvellous truth on the real descendents of Abraham is outlined in clarity. They are a spiritual seed – the Church – and include “all them that believe” and have received the “imputed” righteousness of Christ. This is not a physical ethnic group of Israelites that hate Christ; rather, they are a spiritual nation of spiritual Israelites. Christ is seen challenging these religious Jews, of His day, in John 8, saying, “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” To which they responded, “We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (vv 32-33).

Christ responds to this misguided boast of the religious Jews, saying, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father” (John 8:34-38).

These religious Jews had no revelation of their own innate sin. They were depending upon their own self-righteousness. Little did they know it, but man’s only deliverer from sin was standing in their midst. Every man since Adam is born with original sin and therefore stands completely guilty before a righteous God. In the first Adam (the first nature) all are sinners and therefore destined to lost eternity. Jews and Gentiles approach God on the same grounds being collectively blighted with the same disfigurement – sin. They consequently require the same cure (the only medicine for this affliction) – the blood of Jesus. All men are on a level playing field when it comes to birth. All are equally required to submit to the exact same requirements – faith in Christ and repentance towards God.

Christ continued, “If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father … If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (vv 39-44).

Christ dismisses their claims to being truly of Abraham and God.



Where does he say "Jewishness means nothing"? He doesn't say that. In fact, two or three sentences later he says that being a Jew is an advantage with regard to knowing about God's oracles, which is the corollary to his point that the Ephesians didn't know anything about God's oracles since they were excluded from the commonwealth of Israel.

I Corinthians 7:17 declares, “Circumcision (or one's Jewishness) is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing"

Galatians 5:2 declares, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised (or Jewish), Christ shall profit you nothing."

Galatians 5:5 declares, "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision (or one's Jewishness) availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision (or one's Gentileness); but faith which worketh by love."


Here again you have returned the talk back to Jews as individuals, taking us away from the topic at hand, which is Israel as a nation. I agree that true Jews are circumcised of heart. I just don't accept the reflexive idea that all circumcised of heart are true Jews. Some are Gentiles too.

Paul explains in Philippians 3:3, speaking of the Church, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.”

Paul

BroRog
Jun 11th 2008, 05:21 AM
Who said it was "a figure of speech"? It is a spiritual reference - big difference.

What is the difference?

wpm
Jun 11th 2008, 05:31 AM
What is the difference?

A figure of speech is not literal, a spiritual reference can be. For example, we are literally the children of Abraham - however it is speaking in a spiritual sense or a true context.

Paul

Teke
Jun 11th 2008, 02:00 PM
Always wondered this. Seems to me to be the same thing, but pretty much no one agrees with me. I want to study it a little, so some different views from different people will give me a starting point, a point of reference. My own view might be skewed all by itself.

A new thing isn't an old thing.

Isa 43:18 Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old.

Isa 43:19 Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, [and] rivers in the desert.

The Incarnation isn't an old thing, it's a new thing. :)

John146
Jun 11th 2008, 04:04 PM
Merton,

Do you also think Jeremiah 31:31-34 was fulfilled?

Why wouldn't he? All you have to do is read Hebrews 8:7-13 to see beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's been fulfilled. It is even quoted in its entirety in Hebrews 8:8-12. This is Bible Interpretation 101. You seem stuck in the Old Testament. We need to allow the New Testament to help us understand the meaning of the Old Testament passages. If the New Testament tells us that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fulfilled, which it does, then we should accept that.

Merton
Jun 11th 2008, 10:23 PM
Why wouldn't he? All you have to do is read Hebrews 8:7-13 to see beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's been fulfilled. It is even quoted in its entirety in Hebrews 8:8-12. This is Bible Interpretation 101. You seem stuck in the Old Testament. We need to allow the New Testament to help us understand the meaning of the Old Testament passages. If the New Testament tells us that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fulfilled, which it does, then we should accept that.


The entire fulfilment of the passages in the context of Jeremiah 31 have not been completed.


Jer 31:1 At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:2 Thus saith the LORD, The people whichwere left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.
Jer 31:3 The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
Jer 31:4 Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.
Jer 31:5 Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.
Jer 31:6 For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God.
Jer 31:7 For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.
Jer 31:8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.
Jer 31:9 They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.
Jer 31:10 Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.
Jer 31:11 For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of himthatwas stronger than he.
Jer 31:12 Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the LORD, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all.
Jer 31:13 Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow.
Jer 31:14 And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the LORD.
Jer 31:15 Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Jer 31:16 Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.
Jer 31:17 And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.
Jer 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed totheyoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.
Jer 31:19 Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.
Jer 31:20Is Ephraim my dear son? ishe a pleasant child? for since I spoke against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.
Jer 31:21 Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.
Jer 31:22 How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.
Jer 31:23 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The LORD bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness.
Jer 31:24 And there shall dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks.
Jer 31:25 For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul.
Jer 31:26 Upon this I awaked, and beheld; and my sleep was sweet unto me.
Jer 31:27 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
Jer 31:28 And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.

Merton

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 12:35 PM
Naphal[quote=seamus414;1667863][/color]

Yet what is written is "For they are not all Israel, which are Israel" so your statement cannot be true.


Citation please? Cherry picking verses does not do much for me.


Actually all gentiles in Christ belong to Israel and all Jews who are not in Christ do not belong to Israel. If you are not in Christ you are a spiritual gentile regardless of your bloodline.

It seems like you do not grasp the subtlty of the Covenants. The Old Covenant was ONLY with Israelites and coverts to the same. There is nothing to indicate in Deuternomy 27 - 28 that there were any other parties forming and agreeing to the Covenant than God and the Isrealites.

The parties exist but the old covenant does not. It is the new covenant that now matters and applies.

No, scripture is very clear the old cov. is not "included" or even in existence anylonger. It decayed and passed away, replaced by a better covenant.

Sorry, not according to God:

Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

A new covenant not according to the original.

LIke I said above, I am not a big fan of cherrypicking verses and cut/pasting them here. I respect and believe the passage you cite above. However, the passage above does not address the issue we are speaking about. In other words, the passage above is irrelevant. Your point is that the Old Covenant promises are "null and void" and the parties thereto are gone. The passage above says a new covenant will be created. It does not say that the Old Covenant will be "void" or that the parties thereto are gone. The existence of a New Covenant does not, by definition, void the Old.

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Hebrews 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Hebrews 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Obsolecence is not the same as "void". Something that is "ready to vanish" is not yet vanished.

The concept of the old covenant being added to and made better is simply incorrect. It was faulty and "made old" by God to the effect that it has "decayed" and in Paul's time it was "ready to vanish away" which by today it has. Amen!

On what basis do you have to conclude how long something takes to decay? The Old Covenant was not "faulty" it was appropriate and necessary for the purposes God made it.

Jesus voided the covenant when he died, instituting the new covenant.

So you are saying that God's promises are no longer applicable if they dervive from the Old Covenant?

I think you are confusing the concepts of "fulfilled" and "void". God's promises are eternal and, therefore, his covenants cannot be void. For example, his covenant with Noah not to destroy the world by flood is still good - it is not void.

No, scripture says the opposite of what you say:


Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Hebrews 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

The existence of a new covenant does not mean the older one disappears.

That does not come from the bible...

Sure it does. It is the theme of the ENTIRE Bible. God's revelation and breadth of his covenant expands through the entire Bible. I mentioned this in an other thread but it is worth repeating here: The Bible is a series of covenants that expand upon the previous. God made covenants with: (1) Adam; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Jacob; (5) Moses; (6) David; and, (7) the Apostles. In turn, God made covenants with (1) a man; (2) a family; (3) a lineage; (4) a tribe; (5) a nation; (6) a kingdom; and, (7) the world. Each covenant builds from the previous and expands its scope.

The New Covenant has no meaning without the context of the Old. Nothing Jesus did has any meaning or significance without the Old. So, to say that the Old is "void" is to deprive Jesus's mighty acts of their significance and meaning.

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 02:34 PM
Why wouldn't he? All you have to do is read Hebrews 8:7-13 to see beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's been fulfilled. It is even quoted in its entirety in Hebrews 8:8-12. This is Bible Interpretation 101. You seem stuck in the Old Testament. We need to allow the New Testament to help us understand the meaning of the Old Testament passages. If the New Testament tells us that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fulfilled, which it does, then we should accept that.

John, I agree that if the author of Hebrews says that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fulfilled, I should believe that. I don't think that's what he is saying though.

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 02:40 PM
A figure of speech is not literal, a spiritual reference can be. For example, we are literally the children of Abraham - however it is speaking in a spiritual sense or a true context.

Paul

Well no wonder I am having a hard time making myself understood. You aren't using the terms "literal" and "spiritual" according to their dictionary definitions. You have your own definitions of the terms, which I didn't know.

Teke
Jun 12th 2008, 03:14 PM
The existence of a new covenant does not mean the older one disappears.



Sure it does. It is the theme of the ENTIRE Bible. God's revelation and breadth of his covenant expands through the entire Bible. I mentioned this in an other thread but it is worth repeating here: The Bible is a series of covenants that expand upon the previous. God made covenants with: (1) Adam; (2) Noah; (3) Abraham; (4) Jacob; (5) Moses; (6) David; and, (7) the Apostles. In turn, God made covenants with (1) a man; (2) a family; (3) a lineage; (4) a tribe; (5) a nation; (6) a kingdom; and, (7) the world. Each covenant builds from the previous and expands its scope.

The New Covenant has no meaning without the context of the Old. Nothing Jesus did has any meaning or significance without the Old. So, to say that the Old is "void" is to deprive Jesus's mighty acts of their significance and meaning.


This is a good observation worth noting. It ties in with all those sevens in scripture and their meaning. Their meaning being the binding and loosing of covenant, vow etc. Which basically means there will be those bound to God and those not, composed of that which is created. However, God is eternal and His oath/promise is eternal as He is.
A comparison of that which is eternal and that which is created. God came in the flesh to remind us of this simple truth.

So there really is no old and new covenant as far as God is concerned. As there is no old and new in that which is eternal. ;)

John146
Jun 12th 2008, 03:24 PM
John, I agree that if the author of Hebrews says that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is fulfilled, I should believe that. I don't think that's what he is saying though.

Explain to me then how Hebrews 8:7-13 is not speaking of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34 despite the fact that Hebrews 8:8-12 quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 in its entirety.

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 03:39 PM
Explain to me then how Hebrews 8:7-13 is not speaking of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:31-34 despite the fact that Hebrews 8:8-12 quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 in its entirety.

Objectively speaking, the writer of Hebrews does not say that it is totally fulfilled. That he cites it extensively does not, a priori, mean it is fulfilled. The writer is merely comparing and contrasting the Old and New Covenants and not representing the fulfillment of the New in its entirety.

wpm
Jun 12th 2008, 06:40 PM
Well no wonder I am having a hard time making myself understood. You aren't using the terms "literal" and "spiritual" according to their dictionary definitions. You have your own definitions of the terms, which I didn't know.

I think that you are meaning physical and spiritual, rather than literal and spiritual. I will explain. Both the physical offspring of Abraham and spiritual offspring of Abraham are literal - they are not figurative or imaginary. That should not be hard to grasp.

Paul

wpm
Jun 12th 2008, 06:46 PM
This is a good observation worth noting. It ties in with all those sevens in scripture and their meaning. Their meaning being the binding and loosing of covenant, vow etc. Which basically means there will be those bound to God and those not, composed of that which is created. However, God is eternal and His oath/promise is eternal as He is.
A comparison of that which is eternal and that which is created. God came in the flesh to remind us of this simple truth.

So there really is no old and new covenant as far as God is concerned. As there is no old and new in that which is eternal. ;)

That is not what the Bible says.

Firstly, the old covenant was merely “a shadow of good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1).

The new covenant is “the very image”(Hebrews 10:1), it is “a better and an enduring substance”(Hebrews 10:34).


The old covenant was faulty. Hebrews 8:7-8 confirms, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

Hebrews 8:13 says, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Whilst the Cross ushered in the new covenant, and the removal of the old covenant, many of the outward manifestations of the old covenant still remained. God had vowed to remove every last vestige of the old. This He did. He graciously gave them 40 years to repent (AD30-AD70). Not long after this epistle was written, the temple with its now-rejected sacrifices was finally destroyed. With the destruction of the temple, the temple sacrifices vanished away forever.

Secondly, in the old covenant “sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.”(Hebrews 10:3)

In the new covenant God promises, “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more”(Hebrews 8:12, 10:17).

There is remembrance in the old covenant, whereas there is none under the new.

Thirdly, Hebrews 10:4 tells us, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Here we see the inferiority of the old covenant described. It couldn’t remove sin. It couldn’t remove guilt. It was imperfect. Under it, “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:11-12).

Hebrews 9:26 tells us,“now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In doing this, we are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

Fourthly, the old covenant “can never with those sacrifices … make the comers thereunto perfect” (Hebrews 10:1). Hebrews 9:9 tells us, the “gifts and sacrifices” that the priests offered “could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.” The fact is, “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did” (Hebrews 7:19). That “better hope” was Christ and the transaction He paid for sin at the cross. It was that final sacrifice for sin that perfects the redeemed. Why? Christ has satisfied every righteous demand of a holy God. He took upon Himself our sin and in turn took the penalty that was due to us. There is therefore no condemnation for them that are in Christ; “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”(Hebrews 10:14).

Paul

John146
Jun 12th 2008, 06:57 PM
Objectively speaking, the writer of Hebrews does not say that it is totally fulfilled. That he cites it extensively does not, a priori, mean it is fulfilled. The writer is merely comparing and contrasting the Old and New Covenants and not representing the fulfillment of the New in its entirety.

Are you trying to say you think the new covenant has not yet been established and/or the old covenant has not yet vanished away? If so, how can that be? The new covenant was established by the shed blood of Christ. That should be obvious. The old covenant was faulty, according to Hebrews 8:7. That's why it had to be replaced by the new covenant. What about the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not yet fulfilled? I suppose we could say that it has an ongoing fulfillment since each person who comes to Christ is under the new covenant, but certainly the new covenant has been in place for a long time already and the old covenant vanished a long time ago already.

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 07:21 PM
I think that you are meaning physical and spiritual, rather than literal and spiritual. I will explain. Both the physical offspring of Abraham and spiritual offspring of Abraham are literal - they are not figurative or imaginary. That should not be hard to grasp.

Paul

This is another new one I hadn't heard before. You think figurative is imaginary?

wpm
Jun 12th 2008, 07:33 PM
This is another new one I hadn't heard before. You think figurative is imaginary?

Stop twisting things. It would be more profitable if you addressed my last main post rather than circumventing the several important points I made.

The fact is, we are literally the spiritual offspring of Abraham! I made two distinct separate unrelated negations in case you missed it: "they are not figurative or imaginary."

Paul

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 07:44 PM
John,

Ask yourself the question, "are we saved by covenant or by promise?"

I believe you will find that each of us is saved because of a promise God made to Abraham. In essence, the offer of salvation is simple. God will have mercy on those who repent and believe in Jesus. This is true for anyone regardless of race, sex, or economic status. If a Jew repents and believes in Jesus he or she will be saved. If a Gentile repents and believes in Jesus, he or she will be saved.

The New Covenant isn't simply an announcement about how to get saved. The New Covenant is a covenant God will make with the House of Judah and the House of Israel when God will save every person of those houses all at the same time.

This has never happened yet.

The New Covenant specifies that God will have mercy on these people, put a new spirit in them, and forgive their sins -- all as a group.

God has also demonstrated that he will do this for anybody, not just that group. And that is why the apostle pictures us as being grafted onto the New Covenant. We benefit from what the New Covenant will provide, but without actually being a part of that covenant God will make with those two houses.

Now, just because God has given us salvation on the same basis as he will give it to these two houses, doesn't mean we have replaced those houses or that God was speaking "spiritually" about them (to use WPM's terminology.)

seamus414
Jun 12th 2008, 07:54 PM
John,

Ask yourself the question, "are we saved by covenant or by promise?"

I believe you will find that each of us is saved because of a promise God made to Abraham. In essence, the offer of salvation is simple. God will have mercy on those who repent and believe in Jesus. This is true for anyone regardless of race, sex, or economic status. If a Jew repents and believes in Jesus he or she will be saved. If a Gentile repents and believes in Jesus, he or she will be saved.

The New Covenant isn't simply an announcement about how to get saved. The New Covenant is a covenant God will make with the House of Judah and the House of Israel when God will save every person of those houses all at the same time.

This has never happened yet.

The New Covenant specifies that God will have mercy on these people, put a new spirit in them, and forgive their sins -- all as a group.

God has also demonstrated that he will do this for anybody, not just that group. And that is why the apostle pictures us as being grafted onto the New Covenant. We benefit from what the New Covenant will provide, but without actually being a part of that covenant God will make with those two houses.

Now, just because God has given us salvation on the same basis as he will give it to these two houses, doesn't mean we have replaced those houses or that God was speaking "spiritually" about them (to use WPM's terminology.)

A covenant is a promise, just one that is that much more firmly rooted and written in stone (no pun intended).

wpm
Jun 12th 2008, 07:55 PM
John,

Ask yourself the question, "are we saved by covenant or by promise?"

I believe you will find that each of us is saved because of a promise God made to Abraham. In essence, the offer of salvation is simple. God will have mercy on those who repent and believe in Jesus. This is true for anyone regardless of race, sex, or economic status. If a Jew repents and believes in Jesus he or she will be saved. If a Gentile repents and believes in Jesus, he or she will be saved.

The New Covenant isn't simply an announcement about how to get saved. The New Covenant is a covenant God will make with the House of Judah and the House of Israel when God will save every person of those houses all at the same time.

This has never happened yet.

The New Covenant specifies that God will have mercy on these people, put a new spirit in them, and forgive their sins -- all as a group.

God has also demonstrated that he will do this for anybody, not just that group. And that is why the apostle pictures us as being grafted onto the New Covenant. We benefit from what the New Covenant will provide, but without actually being a part of that covenant God will make with those two houses.

Now, just because God has given us salvation on the same basis as he will give it to these two houses, doesn't mean we have replaced those houses or that God was speaking "spiritually" about them (to use WPM's terminology.)

What actually is the new covenant and when does it kick in and who is under it?

Paul

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 08:00 PM
Stop twisting things. It would be more profitable if you addressed my last main post rather than circumventing the several important points I made.

The fact is, we are literally the spiritual offspring of Abraham! I made two distinct separate unrelated negations in case you missed it: "they are not figurative or imaginary."

Paul

I can't deal with your posts until I understand them, and how can you expect me to understand them if you are using a form of English I don't know?

I don't know what it means to be "literally the spiritual offspring of Abraham." I honestly don't.

The apostle makes his point, in Romans 9, with a comparison between two sons of Abraham: Ishmael and Isaac. The difference between the two boys has nothing at all to do with them, but everything to do with God's choice and his promise. Isaac was the child of promise but not Ishmael. I see nothing "spiritual" about them. The same goes for his other example: Jacob and Esau. The significant difference between these boys has nothing to do with the boys and everything to do with God's choice. God chose Jacob over Esau for his own purposes and before the boys were born. Again, whether these boys are "spiritual" is not relevant to the Apostle's argument.

In summary then, when the Apostle says "[T]hey are not all Israel who are [descended] from Israel" he amplifies his meaning in terms of God's choice, not whether the children are "spiritual" or not. Your view, that the Apostle is speaking of a "spiritual" Israel isn't born out by the evidence.

wpm
Jun 12th 2008, 08:08 PM
I can't deal with your posts until I understand them, and how can you expect me to understand them if you are using a form of English I don't know?

I don't know what it means to be "literally the spiritual offspring of Abraham." I honestly don't.

The apostle makes his point, in Romans 9, with a comparison between two sons of Abraham: Ishmael and Isaac. The difference between the two boys has nothing at all to do with them, but everything to do with God's choice and his promise. Isaac was the child of promise but not Ishmael. I see nothing "spiritual" about them. The same goes for his other example: Jacob and Esau. The significant difference between these boys has nothing to do with the boys and everything to do with God's choice. God chose Jacob over Esau for his own purposes and before the boys were born. Again, whether these boys are "spiritual" is not relevant to the Apostle's argument.

In summary then, when the Apostle says "[T]hey are not all Israel who are [descended] from Israel" he amplifies his meaning in terms of God's choice, not whether the children are "spiritual" or not. Your view, that the Apostle is speaking of a "spiritual" Israel isn't born out by the evidence.

I disagree. Please refer to my last detailed post that addresses this argument.

Paul

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 08:20 PM
What actually is the new covenant and when does it kick in and who is under it?

Paul

According to Jeremiah 31:31-34, God will make a New Covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. God doesn't give Jeremiah a calendar date for when this will take place, merely saying "the days are coming." All we can know is that this hasn't happened yet. The folks who will be under this covenant are the children of the fathers that came out of Egypt.

In the previous verse, Jeremiah notes this,

"In those days they will not say again, `The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.' "But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.

It's kinda a funny metaphor and if someone were to act it out on stage, I'm sure it would have people rolling on the floor with laughter. A man eats sour grapes, but rather than causing his own teeth to be set on edge, it causes his son's teeth to be set on edge. The father eats the grapes but his son feels the effect.

In effect, that's what's happening to the Jews today. Their fathers were stubborn and disobedient, but they are suffering the consequences. The father's made mistakes, but they must deal with the result. The fathers broke the covenant but the children live in exile.

The message through Jeremiah is that this condition is not permanent.

Malachi also spoke of this when he said,

"Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to [their] children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse."

This also has yet to take place. Some day, the children will learn from their fathers, not to make the same mistake they made. When Elijah returns, each man his neighbor and his brother will turn to God with their whole heart and mind.

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 08:21 PM
I disagree. Please refer to my last detailed post that addresses this argument.

Paul

What's wrong, you don't understand my form of English? I just showed you, from Romans 9, the comparison the Apostle makes does not depend on the children but on God's choice. Do you not see that?

wpm
Jun 12th 2008, 08:34 PM
According to Jeremiah 31:31-34, God will make a New Covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. God doesn't give Jeremiah a calendar date for when this will take place, merely saying "the days are coming." All we can know is that this hasn't happened yet. The folks who will be under this covenant are the children of the fathers that came out of Egypt.

In the previous verse, Jeremiah notes this,

"In those days they will not say again, `The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children's teeth are set on edge.' "But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge.

It's kinda a funny metaphor and if someone were to act it out on stage, I'm sure it would have people rolling on the floor with laughter. A man eats sour grapes, but rather than causing his own teeth to be set on edge, it causes his son's teeth to be set on edge. The father eats the grapes but his son feels the effect.

In effect, that's what's happening to the Jews today. Their fathers were stubborn and disobedient, but they are suffering the consequences. The father's made mistakes, but they must deal with the result. The fathers broke the covenant but the children live in exile.

The message through Jeremiah is that this condition is not permanent.

Malachi also spoke of this when he said,

"Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to [their] children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse."

This also has yet to take place. Some day, the children will learn from their fathers, not to make the same mistake they made. When Elijah returns, each man his neighbor and his brother will turn to God with their whole heart and mind.

You are not answering my query: What actually is the new covenant and when does it kick in and who is under it? You are not telling me anything. Is it the cross-work? Are you saying that Gentiles are excluded from the new covenant? Are you saying the new covenant is not here yet? What is the new covenant?

Paul

wpm
Jun 12th 2008, 08:37 PM
What's wrong, you don't understand my form of English? I just showed you, from Romans 9, the comparison the Apostle makes does not depend on the children but on God's choice. Do you not see that?

I was responding to your summing up:



Your view, that the Apostle is speaking of a "spiritual" Israel isn't born out by the evidence."


You make statements like this but alas you back it up with no Scripture. I have showed you in my posts that you are arguing with Scripture.

Paul

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 08:38 PM
A covenant is a promise, just one that is that much more firmly rooted and written in stone (no pun intended).

Yes, all covenants are promises; but not all promises are covenants.

The salvation of Gentiles is not based on a covenant God made with Gentiles, but rather it is based on a promise God made with Abraham.

The apostles point this out. Here is one example,

16 For this reason [it is] by faith, that [it might be] in accordance with grace, in order that the promise may be certain to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, "A father of many nations have I made you") in the sight of Him whom he believed, [even] God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. 18 In hope against hope he believed, in order that he might become a father of many nations , according to that which had been spoken, "So shall your descendants be."

In this epistle, the apostle makes God's promise to Abraham, to be the father of many nations, the basis for including all peoples, not just those "of the Law" as those qualified for salvation. My salvation as an American, son of an Anglo Saxon, European transplant is not based on a Covenant God made with my people. Rather, the basis of my salvation is a promise God made to Abraham that he should be the father of many peoples (nations).

Using WPM's terms, I am a "spiritual" son of Abraham because I have the same faith that Abraham had. And in that sense, all believers, whether Jew or Greek, are spiritual sons of Abraham because we all have the same faith of Abraham.

But only one people has a promise from God that he would save them as a matter of a covenant he makes with them: The House of Judah and the House of Jacob. Salvation will be a term of that covenant, yes. But the Apostles speak about salvation as a free gift for all, not just those who will be under that covenant.

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 08:45 PM
I was responding to your summing up:



You make statements like this but alas you back it up with no Scripture. I have showed you in my posts that you are arguing with Scripture.

Paul

We are both looking at the same passage, Romans 9:6-13, in which the Apostle begins to make his case for why God's word has not failed. In that passage, he makes a series of statements regarding direct descendants of Abraham. Now, either he is speaking about direct descendants or he isn't. And he is either highlighting God's choice or he isn't. If you want to claim that the Apostle is talking about "spiritual" Israel, or "spiritual" children of Abraham, you need to show me from within Romans 9:6-13. Can you do that?

BroRog
Jun 12th 2008, 09:01 PM
You are not answering my query: What actually is the new covenant and when does it kick in and who is under it? You are not telling me anything. Is it the cross-work? Are you saying that Gentiles are excluded from the new covenant? Are you saying the new covenant is not here yet? What is the new covenant?

Paul

Be fair. :) I thought I just gave you an explanation. You are convincing me that English spoken in Northern Ireland is different than the English spoken here. :)

I guess I didn't say what you wanted to hear.

That's fine. Let me approach this from a prophetic point of view.

At some point in the future, God will send the prophet Elijah to the nation state of Israel. At that time, God will also pour out his spirit on each person living there so that the entire nation comes to belief. At that time he will forgive their sins, and bring godliness to Jacob, and make a national covenant with them. This will take place in preparation for the return of Jesus.

That is the New Covenant.

Also, at that time, God will bring the other nations down to the valley of Jehoshaphat, otherwise known as the valley of Judgment. This will serve two main purposes: 1. to test the faith of these new converts, 2. to restore God's name.

In the mean time, God is offering salvation to all who come to him in repentance as he pours out his spirit on individual people down through history. These come to salvation on the very same terms as will be part of that New Covenant and this is why the apostles speak in terms of the inauguration of the New Covenant having taken place at the cross. But we are not saved on the basis of the New Covenant but on the basis of a promise God made to Abraham that he would make him "the father of many nations."

wpm
Jun 12th 2008, 09:04 PM
We are both looking at the same passage, Romans 9:6-13, in which the Apostle begins to make his case for why God's word has not failed. In that passage, he makes a series of statements regarding direct descendants of Abraham. Now, either he is speaking about direct descendants or he isn't. And he is either highlighting God's choice or he isn't. If you want to claim that the Apostle is talking about "spiritual" Israel, or "spiritual" children of Abraham, you need to show me from within Romans 9:6-13. Can you do that?

True Israel never referred to all Israeli citizens; the fact is many Israelis were disobedient, idolaters and rejecters of Messiah. However, God always had a true Israel within natural Israel. Romans 9:6-8 confirms this, saying, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham (through the flesh), are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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.”

Paul declares in Romans 9:6, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” I feel this statement alone nulifies your hypothesis. Contrary to what you say, we cannot overlook the fact that Israel “according to the flesh” is not true Israel. This is repeated time after time in the New Testament.

Paul

John146
Jun 12th 2008, 09:43 PM
John,

Ask yourself the question, "are we saved by covenant or by promise?"

I believe you will find that each of us is saved because of a promise God made to Abraham. In essence, the offer of salvation is simple. God will have mercy on those who repent and believe in Jesus. This is true for anyone regardless of race, sex, or economic status. If a Jew repents and believes in Jesus he or she will be saved. If a Gentile repents and believes in Jesus, he or she will be saved.

The New Covenant isn't simply an announcement about how to get saved. The New Covenant is a covenant God will make with the House of Judah and the House of Israel when God will save every person of those houses all at the same time.

This has never happened yet.

The New Covenant specifies that God will have mercy on these people, put a new spirit in them, and forgive their sins -- all as a group.

God has also demonstrated that he will do this for anybody, not just that group. And that is why the apostle pictures us as being grafted onto the New Covenant. We benefit from what the New Covenant will provide, but without actually being a part of that covenant God will make with those two houses.

Now, just because God has given us salvation on the same basis as he will give it to these two houses, doesn't mean we have replaced those houses or that God was speaking "spiritually" about them (to use WPM's terminology.)

Sorry, but your post makes no sense whatsoever to me. I believe your understanding of the New Covenant is quite flawed, to say the least. Please read the following passage:

Paul, speaking to the Gentile Galatians:

22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27For 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.
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless 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.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


In this passage, the bondwoman represents the old covenant and the freewoman represents the new covenant. Paul is including both Jews and Gentiles under the new covenant, saying that we are children of the freewoman (new covenant) and not of the bondwoman (old covenant). The new covenant is equally for both Jews and Gentiles. It was a covenant made for the house of Israel and house of Judah, which together represent spiritual Israel or true Israel. The New Covenant is not something that will be established in the future . It was established by Christ on the cross almost 2,000 years ago. His sacrifice made salvation available equally to both Israelites and Gentiles.

John146
Jun 12th 2008, 09:45 PM
Yes, all covenants are promises; but not all promises are covenants.

The salvation of Gentiles is not based on a covenant God made with Gentiles, but rather it is based on a promise God made with Abraham.

It was a promise made to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ (Galatians 3:16) and all who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29).

John146
Jun 12th 2008, 09:58 PM
According to Jeremiah 31:31-34, God will make a New Covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. God doesn't give Jeremiah a calendar date for when this will take place, merely saying "the days are coming." All we can know is that this hasn't happened yet. The folks who will be under this covenant are the children of the fathers that came out of Egypt.

God made the covenant a long time ago and it was confirmed by Christ on the cross. Once again, Hebrews 8 makes it clear that the new covenant replaced the old covenant a long time ago. The New Covenant was established by the shed blood of Christ. What future New Covenant can do what Christ has not already done?

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. - Matt 26:26-28



Malachi also spoke of this when he said,

"Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. "He will restore the hearts of the fathers to [their] children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse."

This also has yet to take place. Some day, the children will learn from their fathers, not to make the same mistake they made. When Elijah returns, each man his neighbor and his brother will turn to God with their whole heart and mind.

Once again you miss the New Testament scripture that gives us the fulfillment of that prophecy. I think you are stuck in the Old Testament and not allowing the New Testament to enlighten the meaning of the Old Testament prophecies for you.

Here is the fulfillment of that verse you quoted:

9And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. 10And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. - Matthew 17:9-13

Malachi was prophesying about John the Baptist, as Jesus explains in the passage above. The part about the children learning from their fathers is quoted in the New Testament as well.

13But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. - Luke 1:13-17

You are not understanding the spiritual fulfillment of these prophecies and are insisting on a carnal, literal understanding instead. Look at the passage above. Like Matthew 17, it quotes the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6 as having to do with John the Baptist. John the Baptist was the one who turned the hearts of the fathers to the children. He was the Elijah that was sent. The prophecy isn't saying that Elijah himself would come, but that someone in the spirit and power of Elijah would come. Someone much like Elijah, in other words, but not Elijah himself. And that was John the Baptist. We need to let the New Testament teach us what the meaning of those prophecies really is instead of trying to figure it all out on our own and end up concluding that they haven't been fulfilled even though the New Testament says that they have been.

Naphal
Jun 12th 2008, 11:51 PM
Naphal
[/color]

Yet what is written is "For they are not all Israel, which are Israel" so your statement cannot be true.


Citation please? Cherry picking verses does not do much for me.

It's called a partial quote of a verse, something Christ did many times. It is not "cherry picking" verses whatever that even means. Lets stop with name calling and just have a discussion ok? The verse in question has been posted many times already so you should have already known what the reference was to:


Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Romans 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Romans 9:8 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.




[QUOTE]
Actually all gentiles in Christ belong to Israel and all Jews who are not in Christ do not belong to Israel. If you are not in Christ you are a spiritual gentile regardless of your bloodline.

It seems like you do not grasp the subtlty of the Covenants. The Old Covenant was ONLY with Israelites and coverts to the same. There is nothing to indicate in Deuternomy 27 - 28 that there were any other parties forming and agreeing to the Covenant than God and the Isrealites.


First of all we are discussing the new covenant and the new Israel of that covenant which are Christians. Second, you contradict yourself by saying, "The Old Covenant was ONLY with Israelites and coverts to the same." and then saying, "There is nothing to indicate in Deuternomy 27 - 28 that there were any other parties forming and agreeing to the Covenant than God and the Isrealites."

But it's neither here nor there because it's not the old covenant that is the subject.




LIke I said above, I am not a big fan of cherrypicking verses and cut/pasting them here. I respect and believe the passage you cite above. However, the passage above does not address the issue we are speaking about. In other words, the passage above is irrelevant.


No it's relevant...it documents what I am saying but because it does that you have to work around it and you choose to deny it's relevant.



Your point is that the Old Covenant promises are "null and void" and the parties thereto are gone.

No, I quite clearly said the parties exist but the old covenant does not and that is a clear fact in the NT.





The passage above says a new covenant will be created. It does not say that the Old Covenant will be "void" or that the parties thereto are gone. The existence of a New Covenant does not, by definition, void the Old.

It does:

Hebrews 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.





Obsolecence is not the same as "void". Something that is "ready to vanish" is not yet vanished.

In Paul's day maybe but so many years later it is vanished for those in the new covenant. You can't be part of both covenants. It's either one or the other and only one is in effect currently.



On what basis do you have to conclude how long something takes to decay?

Nature?




The Old Covenant was not "faulty" it was appropriate and necessary for the purposes God made it.

Paul says it was not without fault. It was those faults that made it necessary that a new one be created.

Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

You are saying the opposite that Paul says. Surely you know I cannot take what you say over Paul?



So you are saying that God's promises are no longer applicable if they dervive from the Old Covenant?

I am saying the old covenant is no longer in existence because the new cov. replaced it. Any promises from the old that God wants to still be valid are in the new cov.



I think you are confusing the concepts of "fulfilled" and "void". God's promises are eternal and, therefore, his covenants cannot be void. For example, his covenant with Noah not to destroy the world by flood is still good - it is not void.

We aren't talking about any other covenants. The issue is the old covenant at Sinai being voided. It wasnt fulfilled because Israel broke the covenant and in response God broke it as well.


Zechariah 11:4 Thus saith the LORD my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter;
Zechariah 11:5 Whose possessors slay them, and hold themselves not guilty: and they that sell them say, Blessed be the LORD; for I am rich: and their own shepherds pity them not.
Zechariah 11:6 For I will no more pity the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD: but, lo, I will deliver the men every one into his neighbour's hand, and into the hand of his king: and they shall smite the land, and out of their hand I will not deliver them.
Zechariah 11:7 And I will feed the flock of slaughter, even you, O poor of the flock. And I took unto me two staves; the one I called Beauty, and the other I called Bands; and I fed the flock.
Zechariah 11:8 Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.
Zechariah 11:9 Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
Zechariah 11:10 And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
Zechariah 11:11 And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.

Israel and Judah committed Adultery and God divorced them ending the covenant he had with them.

Zechariah 11:12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.
Zechariah 11:13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.
Zechariah 11:14 Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.


Furthermore he broke the bond between them as well!


Clarke
Zec 11:10 -
I took my staff - Beauty, and cut it asunder - And thus I showed that I determined no longer to preserve them in their free and glorious state. And thus I brake my covenant with them, which they had broken on their part already.

Gill
Zec 11:10 - And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder,.... Signifying that he dropped his pastoral care of them: the Gospel indeed, which is meant by the staff "Beauty", cannot be made void; it will have its designed effect; it is the everlasting Gospel, and will endure; its blessings, promises, doctrines, ordinances, and ministers, shall continue, till all the elect are gathered in, even unto the second coming of Christ: but then it may be removed from one place to another; it may be taken from one people, and given to another; and which is generally owing to contempt of it, unfruitfulness under it, and indifference to it; and this is the case here, it designs the taking away of the Gospel from the Jews, who despised it, and the carrying of it into the Gentile world; see Mat_21:43,
that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people; not the covenant of works, that was made with all mankind in Adam; that was broke, not by the Lord, but by man; and was broke before the Gospel was published; nor the covenant of grace, for this was not made with all the people, nor can it be broken; but the Mosaic economy, the Sinai covenant, called the old covenant, which gradually vanished away: it was of right abolished at the death of Christ; when the Gospel was entirely removed, it more appeared to be so; and this was thoroughly done at the destruction of the city and temple. The last clause may be rendered, "which" covenant "I have made with all the people"; the Gentiles, having promised and given orders to send the Gospel unto them, which was accordingly done.

wpm
Jun 13th 2008, 12:33 AM
We are both looking at the same passage, Romans 9:6-13, in which the Apostle begins to make his case for why God's word has not failed. In that passage, he makes a series of statements regarding direct descendants of Abraham. Now, either he is speaking about direct descendants or he isn't. And he is either highlighting God's choice or he isn't. If you want to claim that the Apostle is talking about "spiritual" Israel, or "spiritual" children of Abraham, you need to show me from within Romans 9:6-13. Can you do that?

God uses the terms "Israel," "circumcision," "Jew[s]," and “children of the Abraham” in both a natural and a spiritual context in Scripture. When He uses them in a natural sense He is talking specifically about the natural Hebrewic offspring. However, when He uses them in a spiritual context He is referring exclusively of the elect of God – God’s true people, those that have entered into salvation by simple faith. The redeemed of God are all those that are found “in Christ” since the beginning of time, the lost are all those that are found “in Adam” from the beginning. The elect have two natures – being born from above, the wicked have only one – their Adamic nature. Scripture makes clear, natural birthright means nothing in salvation. It is rather a broken and a contrite heart.

Men (from all nations) are either viewed as walking “after the Spirit” or “after the flesh,” or, after their natural state or have risen above that to walk after God.

Paul

BroRog
Jun 13th 2008, 01:47 AM
Sorry, but your post makes no sense whatsoever to me. I believe your understanding of the New Covenant is quite flawed, to say the least. Please read the following passage:

Paul, speaking to the Gentile Galatians:

22For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27For 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.
28Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30Nevertheless 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.
31So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.


In this passage, the bondwoman represents the old covenant and the freewoman represents the new covenant. Paul is including both Jews and Gentiles under the new covenant, saying that we are children of the freewoman (new covenant) and not of the bondwoman (old covenant). The new covenant is equally for both Jews and Gentiles. It was a covenant made for the house of Israel and house of Judah, which together represent spiritual Israel or true Israel. The New Covenant is not something that will be established in the future . It was established by Christ on the cross almost 2,000 years ago. His sacrifice made salvation available equally to both Israelites and Gentiles.

Hi John, I don't see how this contradicts my point. Didn't I say we were grafted into the New Covenant?

BroRog
Jun 13th 2008, 01:49 AM
It was a promise made to Abraham and his seed, which is Christ (Galatians 3:16) and all who belong to Christ (Galatians 3:29).

Again, I don't see how this contradicts what I said. If salvation is given according to a promise, then it's not by covenant. Right?

Naphal
Jun 13th 2008, 01:54 AM
Hi John, I don't see how this contradicts my point. Didn't I say we were grafted into the New Covenant?

No one is grafted into the new covenant. It's an open covenant available to anyone who accepts Christ. No one is born racially into the new covenant and therefore no one of another race needs to be grafted in. The grafting is strictly related to being made a part of the special olive tree which is Israel.

wpm
Jun 13th 2008, 02:06 AM
Again, I don't see how this contradicts what I said. If salvation is given according to a promise, then it's not by covenant. Right?

No. The promise is made whereupon we take a hold of the new coveant by simple faith.

Paul

Teke
Jun 13th 2008, 02:19 AM
That is not what the Bible says.

Firstly, the old covenant was merely “a shadow of good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1).

The new covenant is “the very image”(Hebrews 10:1), it is “a better and an enduring substance”(Hebrews 10:34).


The old covenant was faulty. Hebrews 8:7-8 confirms, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

Hebrews 8:13 says, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Whilst the Cross ushered in the new covenant, and the removal of the old covenant, many of the outward manifestations of the old covenant still remained. God had vowed to remove every last vestige of the old. This He did. He graciously gave them 40 years to repent (AD30-AD70). Not long after this epistle was written, the temple with its now-rejected sacrifices was finally destroyed. With the destruction of the temple, the temple sacrifices vanished away forever.

Secondly, in the old covenant “sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.”(Hebrews 10:3)

In the new covenant God promises, “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more”(Hebrews 8:12, 10:17).

There is remembrance in the old covenant, whereas there is none under the new.

Thirdly, Hebrews 10:4 tells us, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Here we see the inferiority of the old covenant described. It couldn’t remove sin. It couldn’t remove guilt. It was imperfect. Under it, “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:11-12).

Hebrews 9:26 tells us,“now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In doing this, we are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10).

Fourthly, the old covenant “can never with those sacrifices … make the comers thereunto perfect” (Hebrews 10:1). Hebrews 9:9 tells us, the “gifts and sacrifices” that the priests offered “could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience.” The fact is, “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did” (Hebrews 7:19). That “better hope” was Christ and the transaction He paid for sin at the cross. It was that final sacrifice for sin that perfects the redeemed. Why? Christ has satisfied every righteous demand of a holy God. He took upon Himself our sin and in turn took the penalty that was due to us. There is therefore no condemnation for them that are in Christ; “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified”(Hebrews 10:14).

Paul

Woah, I posted on the Lord and you come back with all this. :o
Last time I checked the church preaches Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not covenants and animal sacrifice.

Figuratively speaking, OT Israel = NT church when speaking of Jesus Christ.

BroRog
Jun 13th 2008, 03:19 AM
No one is grafted into the new covenant. It's an open covenant available to anyone who accepts Christ. No one is born racially into the new covenant and therefore no one of another race needs to be grafted in. The grafting is strictly related to being made a part of the special olive tree which is Israel.

I'm not arguing that people are born into the covenant. But the text of Jeremiah is quite clear and easy to understand. The covenant will be made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel, which is talking about those whose fathers came out of Egypt. In that day, the entire nation of Israel will come to belief, as it says, "each man his neighbor and his brother." This has never taken place as far as I know.

As for the reference to the Olive Tree in Romans 11, I challenge you to find where the apostle specified Israel to be the Tree. He doesn't. If the Olive Tree is Israel, then verse 25 is a contradiction.

BroRog
Jun 13th 2008, 03:21 AM
No. The promise is made whereupon we take a hold of the new coveant by simple faith.

Paul

Scriptures please. Where does Jesus or any apostle suggest we take hold of the covenant by faith?

Naphal
Jun 13th 2008, 03:31 AM
The covenant will be made with the House of Judah and the House of Israel, which is talking about those whose fathers came out of Egypt. In that day, the entire nation of Israel will come to belief, as it says, "each man his neighbor and his brother." This has never taken place as far as I know.

It doesn't happen all in one day. It's a process that ends with everyone knowing the Lord and the covenant is not limited to only the house of Judah and Israel it simply mentions that a new covenant will be made with them. It also affirms that the Sinai covenant is broken and was broken by them. The new covenant is already established with them and all peoples who accept Jesus.



As for the reference to the Olive Tree in Romans 11, I challenge you to find where the apostle specified Israel to be the Tree. He doesn't. If the Olive Tree is Israel, then verse 25 is a contradiction.

I am not limited to the writings of one Apostle to prove this. The bible is the Word of God, all of it, and God is clear that it is Israel who is that Olive tree.

seamus414
Jun 13th 2008, 12:11 PM
Are you trying to say you think the new covenant has not yet been established and/or the old covenant has not yet vanished away? If so, how can that be? The new covenant was established by the shed blood of Christ. That should be obvious. The old covenant was faulty, according to Hebrews 8:7. That's why it had to be replaced by the new covenant. What about the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not yet fulfilled? I suppose we could say that it has an ongoing fulfillment since each person who comes to Christ is under the new covenant, but certainly the new covenant has been in place for a long time already and the old covenant vanished a long time ago already.

For the sake of argument: what part of Jeremiah 31:31-34 *has* been fulfilled? Can you tell me that? I think it is reasonable to say that the New Covenant has aspects which are fulfilled and aspects which are being fulfilled and aspects which have yet to be fulfilled.

The establishment of one Covenant does not mean previous covenants, and the obligations thereunder, are necessarily waived or declared null. If God has obligations under old covenants, these obligations do not become waived upon God's creation of a new covenant. For example, no matter how many covenants God elects to make, there is no reason to expect God will break his obligation under the Noahic covenant to never flood the world.

Teke
Jun 13th 2008, 01:26 PM
The difference between the two (old and new covenant) consists merely in this, that the will of God as expressed in the law under the old covenant was presented externally to the people, while under the new covenant it is to become an internal principle of life.

It thus appears that the difference between the old and the new covenants must be reduced to this, that what was commanded and applied to the heart in the old is given in the new, and the new is but the completion of the old covenant.

davidandme
Jun 13th 2008, 01:57 PM
Believers in Christ today are the OT Israel. The body of Christ is the church. Please read Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

BroRog
Jun 13th 2008, 02:39 PM
Believers in Christ today are the OT Israel. The body of Christ is the church. Please read Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Yes, the Apostle argues that believers are Abraham's seed. What he doesn't argue is that we are Jacob's seed. Big difference.

wpm
Jun 13th 2008, 02:46 PM
The difference between the two (old and new covenant) consists merely in this, that the will of God as expressed in the law under the old covenant was presented externally to the people, while under the new covenant it is to become an internal principle of life.

It thus appears that the difference between the old and the new covenants must be reduced to this, that what was commanded and applied to the heart in the old is given in the new, and the new is but the completion of the old covenant.

Teke, I think there are a lot more differences than that. I listed some above.

Paul

timmyb
Jun 13th 2008, 03:16 PM
notice how Paul explains how it's not being children of Abraham makes one Israel, but through Issac your seed shall be called, and then narrowed it down even more by choosing Jacob over Esau...

here's an interesting fact... Israel means 'He who strives with God' Jacob wrestled or strived with God before and would not let him go, in the end it will be God not letting Israel go till they have asked him to be their king

John146
Jun 13th 2008, 05:08 PM
Hi John, I don't see how this contradicts my point. Didn't I say we were grafted into the New Covenant?

Didn't you say that the New Covenant will be fulfilled sometime in the future for the houses of Judah and Israel? There is no future fulfillment, it's already been fulfilled by the blood of Christ. The New Covenant was intended for both Israelites and Gentiles all along and it was established and put into effect in full a long time ago.

John146
Jun 13th 2008, 05:16 PM
Again, I don't see how this contradicts what I said. If salvation is given according to a promise, then it's not by covenant. Right?

Wrong. The new covenant was a promise that God made and it has to do with Christ shedding His blood, not just for the sins of Israel, but for the whole world. That is what the New Covenant was intended to accomplish all along and Jesus got the job done. He didn't say "It is finished", for nothing.

John146
Jun 13th 2008, 05:25 PM
For the sake of argument: what part of Jeremiah 31:31-34 *has* been fulfilled? Can you tell me that?

Yes, I can. You know by now that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12, right? Hebrews 8:7 indicates that the old covenant was faulty. Agree? Hebrews 8:13 indicates that even around 2,000 years ago, the old covenant was already about to vanish away. Certainly it has vanished away by now. Agree? The following tells us that Christ took away the old covenant in order to establish the new covenant:

8Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. - Hebrews 10:8-10

Notice what the new covenant does. It sanctifies us through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ "once for all". Clearly, the new covenant is all about the shed blood of Christ for the sins of the world. How can anyone try to say that it is not yet fully in effect?


I think it is reasonable to say that the New Covenant has aspects which are fulfilled and aspects which are being fulfilled and aspects which have yet to be fulfilled.Please explain. Which aspects are being fulfilled and which aspects have yet to be fulfilled?



The establishment of one Covenant does not mean previous covenants, and the obligations thereunder, are necessarily waived or declared null. If God has obligations under old covenants, these obligations do not become waived upon God's creation of a new covenant. For example, no matter how many covenants God elects to make, there is no reason to expect God will break his obligation under the Noahic covenant to never flood the world.What is your point here? Hebrews 8:7 clearly tell us that the old covenant was faulty and Hebrews 8:13 tell us it was made obsolete and was about to vanish away a long time ago. Hebrews 10:8-10 tells us that in order for Christ to establish the new covenant, He had to take away the old covenant.

Teke
Jun 13th 2008, 06:40 PM
Teke, I think there are a lot more differences than that. I listed some above.

Paul

God said He wouldn't put His will on tablets of stone but in our hearts. What "more differences" do you mean?

timmyb
Jun 13th 2008, 07:18 PM
The Ishmaelites are Abraham's seed too...

It was through Jacob that Israel is... the common definition of Israel in Paul's day was that of being a descendant of Abraham... and it was common that Israel was being thrown around in such a manner anyone could have been called a child of Abraham... but Paul had to clarify to the Roman church in Romans 9 that Jacob was the chosen vessel of God's nation and thus the Jews came from Jacob and are Israel...

Teke
Jun 13th 2008, 07:56 PM
The Ishmaelites are Abraham's seed too...

It was through Jacob that Israel is... the common definition of Israel in Paul's day was that of being a descendant of Abraham... and it was common that Israel was being thrown around in such a manner anyone could have been called a child of Abraham... but Paul had to clarify to the Roman church in Romans 9 that Jacob was the chosen vessel of God's nation and thus the Jews came from Jacob and are Israel...

Timmy, for a lil guy with a blanket ("mouths of babes") you certainly have made consistently insightful posts. :hug:

Your absolutely correct about Abraham and discerning the difference between Christ and the descendants of Israel. We all come from Abraham, in that he is the father of many nations, he had eight sons. And out of those eight, one (the eighth) would bring the Messiah. :pray: (we need a praise God smiley)

ShirleyFord
Jun 13th 2008, 10:37 PM
We all come from Abraham, in that he is the father of many nations, he had eight sons. And out of those eight, one (the eighth) would bring the Messiah. :pray: (we need a praise God smiley)

Abraham had 8 sons! The Bible only mention 2 sons, Ishmael born of Sarah's hand maiden and Isaac born of Sarah.

Now after Sarah died Abraham took another wife and had 6 more children:

Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.


But this is the only place these children (could have been sons) are mentioned.

BroRog
Jun 14th 2008, 12:36 AM
Didn't you say that the New Covenant will be fulfilled sometime in the future for the houses of Judah and Israel? There is no future fulfillment, it's already been fulfilled by the blood of Christ. The New Covenant was intended for both Israelites and Gentiles all along and it was established and put into effect in full a long time ago.

Yes, I said Jeremiah 31:31-34 has not come to pass yet. As far as I know, no one believes Jeremiah 31:31-34, taken at face value, has come to pass. I assume (correct me if I misunderstand your view) that when you say, "it's already been fulfilled" you place the fulfillment on some etheric plane?

Naphal
Jun 14th 2008, 12:39 AM
Yes, I said Jeremiah 31:31-34 has not come to pass yet. As far as I know, no one believes Jeremiah 31:31-34, taken at face value, has come to pass. I assume (correct me if I misunderstand your view) that when you say, "it's already been fulfilled" you place the fulfillment on some etheric plane?


Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jeremiah 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

These have been fulfilled. The next verses are in the process and will be completed by the time Jesus returns.

BroRog
Jun 14th 2008, 12:57 AM
Wrong. The new covenant was a promise that God made and it has to do with Christ shedding His blood, not just for the sins of Israel, but for the whole world. That is what the New Covenant was intended to accomplish all along and Jesus got the job done. He didn't say "It is finished", for nothing.

John, I think you are conflating two different issues, the New Covenant God will make with the sons of Jacob, and the basis of that covenant, which also applies to every one who repents. Yes, the cross is the basis for God's reconciliation with mankind, but it is also the basis for the New Covenant God will make with the sons of Jacob. The cross accomplishes both of those things but that doesn't mean both of them are the same thing.

Remember, the Apostle points out, ""The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob." As far as I know, no one, not even wpm claims that the Bible uses the term "Jacob" in a "spiritual" sense, (though he may soon. :) ) The promise concerns Jacob, not Abraham. So even if we were going to claim to be "spiritual" sons of Abraham, no one has a Biblical basis for claiming to be a "spiritual" son of Jacob.

Do they? I don't think so.

Clifton
Jun 14th 2008, 01:22 AM
You are convincing me that English spoken in Northern Ireland is different than the English spoken here. :)

No, we all use the same English words - we just sound different (I mean "in person", and the vocal sounds we use - take British for example - it is English but Americans sound different when talking the English words).

Your English is just fine with the International English definitions, so keep on posting - Not gonna say I disagree and agree hither and thither - I'm not gonna participate here, but I am just watching and observing - I see you posting scriptures, so that is an incentive for me to read them on my side. And of course, I am curious about the beliefs of those in Ireland (are the beliefs of the Saints in Ireland pretty consistent with each other?) - Plus, I just can't help myself from watching: one of my late Grandmother's genealogy is that of the Irish - so I may have a tad bit of Irish Blood in me - at least a DNA Strain or two.;)

So by all means, please continue carry on and don't go anywhere!:)

Blessings.

manichunter
Jun 14th 2008, 01:31 AM
What was Ephriam and Mannasah considered by birth. Gentile or Jew. They were grafted in by Israel in place of Joseph who had been cut of ceremonially. They were Gentiles since race is determined by the mother in the Bible. This is what made Jesus and Israelite as well......... Possibly Ephraim and Mannasah were foreshadowing something that took place in the Second Covenant.

The First Covenant was of no effect because it depended on my trying to keep his end of the marriage covenant with God in the flesh. Hence God made a second covenant with Himself, that He invited us into by faith.

wpm
Jun 14th 2008, 05:01 AM
John, I think you are conflating two different issues, the New Covenant God will make with the sons of Jacob, and the basis of that covenant, which also applies to every one who repents. Yes, the cross is the basis for God's reconciliation with mankind, but it is also the basis for the New Covenant God will make with the sons of Jacob. The cross accomplishes both of those things but that doesn't mean both of them are the same thing.

Remember, the Apostle points out, ""The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob." As far as I know, no one, not even wpm claims that the Bible uses the term "Jacob" in a "spiritual" sense, (though he may soon. :) ) The promise concerns Jacob, not Abraham. So even if we were going to claim to be "spiritual" sons of Abraham, no one has a Biblical basis for claiming to be a "spiritual" son of Jacob.

Do they? I don't think so.

Jeremiah 31:31 doesn't say Jacob as you keep arguing. It says Israel. Please read: "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah."

This covenant was already made 2,000 yrs ago, it was the shedding of Christ's blood that secured this covenant. It is fully made. Moreover, this covenant was applied to the hearts of Israel first and Gentiles have since been brought into this believing house through the work of Christ and faith in His finished work.

Ephesians 2:11-19 which declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

Jews and Gentiles are unified together in this passage on the grounds of “the blood of Christ.” This is the only means of cleansing and freedom God knows or accepts. A Gentile is said to be united to the true Israelite. They are said to be “fellowcitizens.”

This choice body is not limited to natural Israelis that have come to faith – it is open to all the household of faith (irrespective of birthdate, nationality or colour). We Gentiles that were once hopelessly “without Christ” (or separated from Christ), are now graciously found “in Christ Jesus” through the Cross (Ephesians 2:13). We were “aliens” or estranged “from the citizenship of Israel”(Ephesians 2:12) but now are “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19). We were “strangers from the covenants of the promise” (Ephesians 2:12), but are now “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6). We were blind “having no hope,” but now we belong to “one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope” (Ephesians 4:4).

Paul

wpm
Jun 14th 2008, 05:09 AM
John, I think you are conflating two different issues, the New Covenant God will make with the sons of Jacob, and the basis of that covenant, which also applies to every one who repents. Yes, the cross is the basis for God's reconciliation with mankind, but it is also the basis for the New Covenant God will make with the sons of Jacob. The cross accomplishes both of those things but that doesn't mean both of them are the same thing.

Remember, the Apostle points out, ""The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob." As far as I know, no one, not even wpm claims that the Bible uses the term "Jacob" in a "spiritual" sense, (though he may soon. :) ) The promise concerns Jacob, not Abraham. So even if we were going to claim to be "spiritual" sons of Abraham, no one has a Biblical basis for claiming to be a "spiritual" son of Jacob.

Do they? I don't think so.

Paul explained in Romans 9:27-28, “Esaias also crieth concerning Israel,though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.”This “remnant” within the nation of Israel that is spoken of in Romans 11 is all those that are subject to “the election.” The remnant is the recipients. The election is what they possess.

The statement “all Israel shall be saved” has caused much confusion and debate over the years. However, it cannot be divorced from the previous qualifying statements in Romans 9, as some do, which seems to place significant limits upon the meaning of this statement. This text must therefore be carefully interpreted in the light of the overall context of all of these associated chapters, which appear to indicate a restriction upon the amount of Jews that will be saved. We previously established “though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved” (Romans 9:27), accordingly, “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (Romans 9:6).

Romans 11:26 declares, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” This reference is significantly based upon, and taken from, Isaiah 59:20 which specifically qualifies the saying, stating, “And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.” Paul wasn’t saying that every Israelis would be saved. Paul in essence is teaching, “And so houto (Strong’s 3779) (or) in this manner (or) on this fashion all Israel (all those that bow the knee to Christ in repentance) will be saved.”

Romans 11:27 continues, identifying Israel’s only hope of salvation, “For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Firstly, the Deliverer/Redeemer here is Christ. Secondly, the covenant that would “take away their sins” was the new covenant. There was/is no other covenant that could meet the demand to “take away their sins.” The Old Testament ordinances and sacrifices were imperfect and could never take away sin.

Hebrews 10:4 tells us, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Here we see the inferiority of the old covenant described. It couldn’t remove sin. It couldn’t remove guilt. It was imperfect. Under it, “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God. (Hebrews 10:11-12). Hebrews 9:26 tells us,“now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” In doing this, we are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Hebrews 10:10). Paul therefore connects the salvation of Jews to the cross. This is Israel’s only hope.

Messiah assuredly came to save His people. The Redeemer indeed“come to Zion” giving deliverance “unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob.” This transaction has already happened. Christ – the Redeemer – has came to His people Israel and provided their deliverance from sin in the form of His one all-sufficient sacrifice for sin at the cross. For near 2,000 years Israelites have been entering into the deliverance and joy of Calvary.

Paul asks in Romans 9:30-33, “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel (of the flesh), which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they (natural Israel) stumbled at that stumblingstone; as it is written, behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.”

Paul is here employing the Old Testament book of Isaiah, and chapters’ 8:14-15 & 28:16, to explain the condition by which salvation is obtained by both Jew and Gentile in the new economy. Faith is strictly the criteria and Christ is clearly the “rock of offence.” The next chapter of Romans explains, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (10:4).

Paul

Teke
Jun 14th 2008, 03:27 PM
Abraham had 8 sons! The Bible only mention 2 sons, Ishmael born of Sarah's hand maiden and Isaac born of Sarah.

Now after Sarah died Abraham took another wife and had 6 more children:

Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.

2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.


But this is the only place these children (could have been sons) are mentioned.

Point is that they are all sons of Abraham. And they are mentioned in scripture as they play pivotal roles in God's plans. Especially Medan and Midian who were mixed in with the Ishmaelites. Who do you think got Joseph out of the pit and who his brothers sold him to.

The only way you could tell the difference between an Ishmaelite and a Midianite were by their nose rings. Their with Jacob in 35:4 Genesis and Moses in Ex. 32:2, IOW they were mixed in with Israel.

The Muslims Quran only mentions the two sons and nothing of the other six. One among many reasons they are misled in their thinking.

davidandme
Jun 14th 2008, 07:16 PM
The promise of Israel was given to Abraham. Jacob is the grandson of Abraham.

BroRog
Jun 14th 2008, 07:23 PM
Jeremiah 31:31 doesn't say Jacob as you keep arguing. It says Israel. Please read: "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah."

This covenant was already made 2,000 yrs ago, it was the shedding of Christ's blood that secured this covenant. It is fully made. Moreover, this covenant was applied to the hearts of Israel first and Gentiles have since been brought into this believing house through the work of Christ and faith in His finished work.

Ephesians 2:11-19 which declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

Jews and Gentiles are unified together in this passage on the grounds of “the blood of Christ.” This is the only means of cleansing and freedom God knows or accepts. A Gentile is said to be united to the true Israelite. They are said to be “fellowcitizens.”

This choice body is not limited to natural Israelis that have come to faith – it is open to all the household of faith (irrespective of birthdate, nationality or colour). We Gentiles that were once hopelessly “without Christ” (or separated from Christ), are now graciously found “in Christ Jesus” through the Cross (Ephesians 2:13). We were “aliens” or estranged “from the citizenship of Israel”(Ephesians 2:12) but now are “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (Ephesians 2:19). We were “strangers from the covenants of the promise” (Ephesians 2:12), but are now “fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel” (Ephesians 3:6). We were blind “having no hope,” but now we belong to “one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope” (Ephesians 4:4).

Paul

Paul, I didn't say "Jacob"; Isaiah said "Jacob" and the Apostle repeated the prophecy. God, through Isaiah, promised to remove ungodliness from Jacob. And you, of all people, should agree that God has never removed ungodliness from Jacob. As I recall, you were the one who started the thread, " 60 years on as a nation and they're STILL rejecting Christ."

You claim to be a part of Israel via Abraham, i.e. his "spiritual seed". And your argument centers around the "spiritual" use of the terms "Israel" (which I disagree with), "Jew", and "circumcised." The term "Jacob" was not on your list, and it won't end up on your list because the NT never uses the term "Jacob" in a "spiritual" sense.

Therefore, God's promise in Isaiah, and repeated in Romans 11, concerns a removal of ungodliness from the literal, physical children of Jacob, which even you agree, hasn't taken place yet. :)

Now, as for the Jeremiah prophecy, here is a place where God makes it very clear that he is NOT speaking about "spiritual Israel". In my view, anyone who reads this ought to think very seriously about the "spiritual Israel view."

31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord.

So then, just in case we are tempted to spiritualize the terms "house of Judah and house of Israel" (which is very tempting) God identifies these people as the literal, physical descendants of Judah and Israel. No spiritual son of Abraham can claim to have fathers that came out of Egypt, unless he or she is also a physical descendant of Judah or Israel. And no Gentile "spiritual" son of Abraham can claim to have broken the Mt. Sinai Covenant because we Gentiles have never been under THAT covenant. Rather, no other interpretation is possible than the one God intended, promising to make a New Covenant with a particular race of people.

I suppose this offends our democratic sensibilities of fairness and equity, but God isn't embarrassed about being unfair. After all, what is so fair about forgiveness? What is fair about not getting what we deserve? Why do we care if God wants to save an entire generation of Jews living in Israel as long as he keeps his promise to us?

I say there are dangers inherent in all this "spiritual" interpretation, which is evident here. It isn't as if Jesus and the Apostles haven't used terms like "Jew" and "circumcision" in a figurative sense (spiritual as you say) but in this prophecy, it is beyond reason and common sense to think that the House of Judah and the House of Israel is spiritual language. We need to be cautious as we study, trying to be careful to pay attention to what is spiritual and what isn't.

wpm
Jun 15th 2008, 01:17 AM
Paul, I didn't say "Jacob"; Isaiah said "Jacob" and the Apostle repeated the prophecy. God, through Isaiah, promised to remove ungodliness from Jacob. And you, of all people, should agree that God has never removed ungodliness from Jacob. As I recall, you were the one who started the thread, " 60 years on as a nation and they're STILL rejecting Christ."

You claim to be a part of Israel via Abraham, i.e. his "spiritual seed". And your argument centers around the "spiritual" use of the terms "Israel" (which I disagree with), "Jew", and "circumcised." The term "Jacob" was not on your list, and it won't end up on your list because the NT never uses the term "Jacob" in a "spiritual" sense.

Therefore, God's promise in Isaiah, and repeated in Romans 11, concerns a removal of ungodliness from the literal, physical children of Jacob, which even you agree, hasn't taken place yet. :)

Now, as for the Jeremiah prophecy, here is a place where God makes it very clear that he is NOT speaking about "spiritual Israel". In my view, anyone who reads this ought to think very seriously about the "spiritual Israel view."

31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord.

So then, just in case we are tempted to spiritualize the terms "house of Judah and house of Israel" (which is very tempting) God identifies these people as the literal, physical descendants of Judah and Israel. No spiritual son of Abraham can claim to have fathers that came out of Egypt, unless he or she is also a physical descendant of Judah or Israel. And no Gentile "spiritual" son of Abraham can claim to have broken the Mt. Sinai Covenant because we Gentiles have never been under THAT covenant. Rather, no other interpretation is possible than the one God intended, promising to make a New Covenant with a particular race of people.

I suppose this offends our democratic sensibilities of fairness and equity, but God isn't embarrassed about being unfair. After all, what is so fair about forgiveness? What is fair about not getting what we deserve? Why do we care if God wants to save an entire generation of Jews living in Israel as long as he keeps his promise to us?

I say there are dangers inherent in all this "spiritual" interpretation, which is evident here. It isn't as if Jesus and the Apostles haven't used terms like "Jew" and "circumcision" in a figurative sense (spiritual as you say) but in this prophecy, it is beyond reason and common sense to think that the House of Judah and the House of Israel is spiritual language. We need to be cautious as we study, trying to be careful to pay attention to what is spiritual and what isn't.

First, I didn't start the thread, "60 years on as a nation and they're STILL rejecting Christ." I'm not the only one with light on this board. :lol:

Secondly, Paul differentiates between the Israelite according to “the flesh” and Israelite according to “the Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 10:18 says, “Israel after the flesh.” If this Israel (according to the flesh) is not the same as the "Israel of God" he speaks of elsewhere then my point is made. In Romans 9:3 he describes the natural Jew as “my kinsmen according to the flesh” and in Romans 9:5 describes them as Israelites “as concerning the flesh.”

Paul makes it clear in his writings that there is another Israel outside of this Israel after the flesh.Romans 9:6 confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Here we see two Israels in view – one according to the flesh and one according to the Spirit – these are identified in Romans 9:8 as “the children of God” or “the children of the promise.” This is obviously not talking about all natural Israelis – as most even in the Old Testament seemed to rebel against God’s holy demands. Moreover, one could never call anyone “the children of the promise” unless they were of the family of faith.

This conclusion is supported by Ephesians 2:11-19 which declares, “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

Jews and Gentiles are unified together in this passage on the grounds of “the blood of Christ.” This is the only means of cleansing and freedom God knows or accepts. A Gentile is said to be united to the true Israelite. They are said to be “fellowcitizens.”

The kingdom has been taken from Israel as a nation and given to another nation – the largely Gentile New Testament Church – comprised of all believers (whether Jew or Gentile). Paul confirms in Romans 11 that all who part of the Church are grafted into the good olive tree – the Israel of God. This discourse showed these unbelieving religious Jews that because of their wanton rejection of Himself, Christ would extend His mercy to all nations. The near exclusive favour that natural Israel had formerly enjoyed would now be graciously widened to include the previously darkened Gentile people. Paul, speaking to the mainly Gentile church in Rome says, in Romans 11:20, “because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou (the Gentiles) standest by faith.”

While God used the physical nation of Israel to be His sole national witness throughout the Old Testament period, the nation as a whole has not, or ever had, any divine favour, promises or salvation outside of Christ. He is man’s only Saviour. He is Israel’s great Messiah. He is the very essence of what Israel is all about. Christ is the fulfilment of every promise made unto Abraham and the redeemed Church throughout time. There are thus no promises or inheritances outside of Christ or His people, for through Him the Church throughout time has become “the children of promise” and the recipients of every spiritual blessing in Him.

The Olive tree represents a believing Israeli group - the Israel of God. We the redeemed of God have been grafted into it to join the OT saints. All who come to Christ - Jew and Gentile will be grafted into this tree. There is hope for all who will accept Christ. That hope still stands for the people of Israel.

Paul

pinky
Jun 15th 2008, 01:19 PM
Amen WPM (Paul)!



There are thus no promises or inheritances outside of Christ or His people, for through Him the Church throughout time has become “the children of promise” and the recipients of every spiritual blessing in Him.

Yes indeed.....

Rev 21:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev021.html#7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

jewel4Christ
Jun 15th 2008, 04:25 PM
Amen WPM (Paul)!




Yes indeed.....

Rev 21:7 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rev/Rev021.html#7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.


I say AMEN, too!

peaceandlove,

janet

BroRog
Jun 15th 2008, 05:25 PM
First, I didn't start the thread, "60 years on as a nation and they're STILL rejecting Christ." I'm not the only one with light on this board. :lol:

My apologies. I'm still getting used to this board.


Secondly, Paul differentiates between the Israelite according to “the flesh” and Israelite according to “the Spirit.” 1 Corinthians 10:18 says, “Israel after the flesh.” If this Israel (according to the flesh) is not the same as the "Israel of God" he speaks of elsewhere then my point is made.

It depends what your point is. If you want to argue that "Israel after the flesh" and the "Israel of God" are two mutually exclusive concepts, you haven't made a case for that in this thread as far as I can tell. If you want to argue that Gentile believers are in one group or the other, you haven't made a case for that either.

In Romans 9:3 he describes the natural Jew as “my kinsmen according to the flesh” and in Romans 9:5 describes them as Israelites “as concerning the flesh.”


Yes, he does. In fact, Peter and Paul could say this about each other. James and John could say the same thing about each other. Jesus and Mary could say the same thing about each other. For one Jew to call another Jew a "kinsmen according to the flesh" says nothing at all about the spiritual status of either one.


Paul makes it clear in his writings that there is another Israel outside of this Israel after the flesh. Romans 9:6 confirms, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Here we see two Israels in view – one according to the flesh and one according to the Spirit – these are identified in Romans 9:8 as “the children of God” or “the children of the promise.”

I disagree with your interpretation based on the rest of Paul's arguments in chapter 9, 10 and 11. The two Israel's in verse 9:6 are 1) Israel the country, and 2) Israel the ethnic group. The sentence in last half of 9:6 derives its meaning from the first half, (which seems to never get quoted)
"But it is not as though the word of God has failed." In this we see the Apostle's concern. His Gospel, salvation by faith according to grace, which includes Gentiles as well as Jews, appears to run contrary to God's promise to save all Jews.

As he says earlier, "the adoption as sons" belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. Notice, he didn't say it belonged to his kinsmen of the spirit. That salvation belongs to the Jews as a people is a clear teaching of scripture, and a promise which seems to go unfulfilled.

The Apostle's immediate answer is NOT to say that only "spiritual" sons of Abraham can be saved. While that is true, it isn't his argument in this section. Rather, he argues that salvation is given to whomever God wants to give it according to his choice.

I remind you again, the Apostle makes his case by giving the reader two examples. In the first instance, God is choosing between two of Abraham's children. The difference between the two boys is whether God has chosen the boy or not. No mention is given as to the spiritual state of these boys. The apostle doesn't argue in this passage, as you suggest, that Isaac was spiritual while Ishmael was not. Instead, he argues that Isaac was a child of promise according to a promise God made to Sarah.

For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son."


The locus of Paul's argument is God's promise, not the spirituality of the sons. It may be true that later in life Isaac came to believe and trust in God. I'm sure he did. But that is not the prominent point of Paul's case.Rather, he intends to show that being an Israelite of the promise has always been according to God's choice. In each of his two examples, a choice is being made between two kinsmen of Paul's flesh. Isaac is a child of promise and Ishmael is not, but the most prominent feature of this idea is the fact that God did the choosing.



This is obviously not talking about all natural Israelis – as most even in the Old Testament seemed to rebel against God’s holy demands. Moreover, one could never call anyone “the children of the promise” unless they were of the family of faith.


Granted. We both agree on this point. In my view, though, we shouldn't extrapolate this idea to Gentiles, which would go beyond what the Apostle is trying to say to us.


Jews and Gentiles are unified together in this passage on the grounds of “the blood of Christ.” This is the only means of cleansing and freedom God knows or accepts. A Gentile is said to be united to the true Israelite. They are said to be “fellowcitizens.”


I agree that Jews and Gentiles are unified under Christ. I do not agree that the apostle intended to suggest that this unified body of Jews and Gentiles is "true Israel". Rather, the Apostle has united them all under Christ, which he calls "a new man." Even if there were a "true Israel", it wouldn't be new since the "true Israel" had been around for centuries, what the Apostle calls "the remnant". There has always been a remnant, he says. But the unification of Jew and Gentile is new.


The kingdom has been taken from Israel as a nation and given to another nation – the largely Gentile New Testament Church – comprised of all believers (whether Jew or Gentile). Paul confirms in Romans 11 that all who part of the Church are grafted into the good olive tree – the Israel of God.

I believe your statement about the "kingdom being taken away" comes from the mouth of Jesus, who spoke of the Jewish leaders not the nation of Israel. The kingdom was being taken from the scribes and Pharisees and given to the Apostles.


While God used the physical nation of Israel to be His sole national witness throughout the Old Testament period, the nation as a whole has not, or ever had, any divine favour, promises or salvation outside of Christ.


I suspect, when you make a statement like this, your purpose is to highly emphasize Jesus Christ, which is a good thing in my opinion. But it really doesn't make much sense of God's work among the people, and his oracles to them. All of the promises God made to Israel were national promises including the promise to send a deliverer. And while we agree that Jesus Christ is the central focal point, the agent and the means by which these promises will come to pass, it is NOT true that God does not give divine favor to the Jewish race as a people.

We don't have to venture very far from our passage to see this. As the apostle says, "the covenants belong to them." These don't belong to us; they belong to them. They are natural branches; we are grafted in. They belong on the tree; we are put there by faith.

Naphal
Jun 15th 2008, 06:23 PM
As the apostle says, "the covenants belong to them." These don't belong to us; they belong to them. They are natural branches; we are grafted in. They belong on the tree; we are put there by faith.

You forget that the natural branches that lack faith are pruned away. "They" do not belong on the tree and do not remain there. Only those in Christ belong on the tree whether born there or grafted in. Also don't forget that all the branches are olive tree branches, whether from this certain tree or from "wild olive trees".

ShirleyFord
Jun 15th 2008, 06:51 PM
You forget that the natural branches that lack faith are pruned away. "They" do not belong on the tree and do not remain there. Only those in Christ belong on the tree whether born there or grafted in. Also don't forget that all the branches are olive tree branches, whether from this certain tree or from "wild olive trees".

Amen Naphal! :)

Paul says that there is only one way those Jews, the natural branches who were broken off the good olive tree, to be grafted in again, "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." (Romans 11:20, 23)

There are some OT saints, members of the Church whose faith was in Christ, who were never broken off of the good olive trree: Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Zechariah, Haggai, etc; Simeon, Anna, Joseph, Mary, Zacharias, Elizabeth, and the multitudes of Jews who believed on Himand followed Him during His earthly ministry.

We find multitudes of Jews from the day of Penticost who had rejected Jesus and crucified Him who believed the preaching of the gospel and were added to them, the Church, the good olive tree.

Then we find Gentiles believing the gospel and being grafted into true Israel, the Church, the good olive tree, when the gospel first began going out to them in Acts 10. And Jews throughout the book of Acts continued hearing the gospel and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and were grafted onto the good olive tree from where they had been broken off.



Shirley

BroRog
Jun 15th 2008, 06:54 PM
You forget that the natural branches that lack faith are pruned away. "They" do not belong on the tree and do not remain there. Only those in Christ belong on the tree whether born there or grafted in. Also don't forget that all the branches are olive tree branches, whether from this certain tree or from "wild olive trees".

Yes, of course Naphal. :) I merely meant to highlight why they are called "natural" branches, since they belong there. They do belong on the tree because that is what it means to be a natural branch.

If I give your ice-cream cone to someone else, you are going to say, "Hey, that's my ice-cream cone. It belongs to me." It causes you jealousy because something that belongs to you has been given to someone else.

As the Apostle says,

But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them.

Hopefully his countrymen will say, "Hey, salvation belongs to me. I'm an Israelite." It's true, salvation belongs to them and they should be jealous about it. And if they value it, their jealousy might lead them to seek it. It's available to them now, if they want it.

In addition, Paul warned us not to arrogate it to ourselves as Gentiles. It's easy, given our human nature, to think to ourselves, "Hey, it was your's to begin with but now it's ours." To that I say to myself, "Hey wait a minute. God is saving me by grace. It isn't as if he owed it to me." I believe it's a real temptation we all face, but I'm just speaking for myself.

BroRog
Jun 15th 2008, 06:59 PM
Amen Naphal! :)

Paul says that there is only one way those Jews, the natural branches who were broken off the good olive tree, to be grafted in again, "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." (Romans 11:20, 23)

There are some OT saints, members of the Church whose faith was in Christ, who were never broken off of the good olive trree: Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Zechariah, Haggai, etc; Simeon, Anna, Joseph, Mary, Zacharias, Elizabeth, and the multitudes of Jews who believed on Himand followed Him during His earthly ministry.

We find multitudes of Jews from the day of Penticost who had rejected Jesus and crucified Him who believed the preaching of the gospel and were added to them, the Church, the good olive tree.

Then we find Gentiles believing the gospel and being grafted into true Israel, the Church, the good olive tree, when the gospel first began going out to them in Acts 10. And Jews throughout the book of Acts continued hearing the gospel and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and were grafted onto the good olive tree from where they had been broken off.



Shirley

I say amen to you too Shirley. :)

I would love to get Paul to see that all of this is true, AND God will deal with Israel again in the future as a people. What you said and what I said are not incompatible.

Naphal
Jun 15th 2008, 07:10 PM
Amen Naphal! :)

Paul says that there is only one way those Jews, the natural branches who were broken off the good olive tree, to be grafted in again, "Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again." (Romans 11:20, 23)


I am always amazed how some seem to read over the part about the pruning and the requirements to be grafted back on. Yes, Unbelieving Jews that accept Christ are grafted on just like any gentile is because they are spiritually a gentile in unbelief.






There are some OT saints, members of the Church whose faith was in Christ, who were never broken off of the good olive trree: Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Zechariah, Haggai, etc; Simeon, Anna, Joseph, Mary, Zacharias, Elizabeth, and the multitudes of Jews who believed on Himand followed Him during His earthly ministry.



Amen to that.



We find multitudes of Jews from the day of Penticost who had rejected Jesus and crucified Him who believed the preaching of the gospel and were added to them, the Church, the good olive tree.

Yes, they were grafted in along with any non-Jewish believers.





Then we find Gentiles believing the gospel and being grafted into true Israel, the Church, the good olive tree, when the gospel first began going out to them in Acts 10. And Jews throughout the book of Acts continued hearing the gospel and believing on the Lord Jesus Christ and were grafted onto the good olive tree from where they had been broken off.


Agreed.

Naphal
Jun 15th 2008, 07:21 PM
Yes, of course Naphal. :) I merely meant to highlight why they are called "natural" branches, since they belong there. They do belong on the tree because that is what it means to be a natural branch.

I was specifying that only Christian Jews belong there. Non-Christian Jews do not belong there. Do you agree with that?



If I give your ice-cream cone to someone else, you are going to say, "Hey, that's my ice-cream cone. It belongs to me." It causes you jealousy because something that belongs to you has been given to someone else.

And the ice cream cone represents Gods favor towards his chosen bride. God took that away from Israel and only those that are Christians can have it regardless of their race. The loss of that favor should provoke jealously but some Jews are so prideful they believe they still have it such as the Pharisees of Jesus' day, and really any day.





Hopefully his countrymen will say, "Hey, salvation belongs to me. I'm an Israelite." It's true, salvation belongs to them and they should be jealous about it. And if they value it, their jealousy might lead them to seek it. It's available to them now, if they want it.

Eh, Salvation "belonging" to Israelites is a poorly worded statement IMO. What used to belong to them was the chosen status, election.



In addition, Paul warned us not to arrogate it to ourselves as Gentiles. It's easy, given our human nature, to think to ourselves, "Hey, it was your's to begin with but now it's ours."

I am not a gentile myself racially but there is nothing wrong with Christian Jews as well as gentile Christians knowing and claiming the fact that salvation is theirs through Christ.

Paul warned against the idea that the only reason unbeliving Jews were pruned off was to allow the gentiles to be grafted in but that's not why there was a pruning. It was due to the Jews unbelief that they were pruned. It was not as if the tree could not receive the gentiles without removing some of the natural branches.

jewel4Christ
Jun 15th 2008, 10:41 PM
Amen Naphal!

I have a question..


The apostle doesn't argue in this passage, as you suggest, that Isaac was spiritual while Ishmael was not. Instead, he argues that Isaac was a child of promise according to a promise God made to Sarah.

For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son."


The locus of Paul's argument is God's promise, not the spirituality of the sons. It may be true that later in life Isaac came to believe and trust in God. I'm sure he did. But that is not the prominent point of Paul's case.Rather, he intends to show that being an Israelite of the promise has always been according to God's choice. In each of his two examples, a choice is being made between two kinsmen of Paul's flesh. Isaac is a child of promise and Ishmael is not, but the most prominent feature of this idea is the fact that God did the choosing.




Why did God choose Isaac, according to the word of God, if "the promise" does not relate to "those of faith/spirit"?


It makes no sense that God would choose someone based on "flesh/race/etc"....over someone else.


Is God a respector of persons, based solely on outward appearances/race/flesh, or does the word of God even from the BEGINNING teach us that without FAITH, it is impossible to please Him?

Some pertinent scriptures need to be discussed on this.


peaceandlove,


janet

wpm
Jun 16th 2008, 04:18 AM
It depends what your point is. If you want to argue that "Israel after the flesh" and the "Israel of God" are two mutually exclusive concepts, you haven't made a case for that in this thread as far as I can tell. If you want to argue that Gentile believers are in one group or the other, you haven't made a case for that either.

Roger, you haven't changed much over the yrs. ;) You come out with these blanket statements simply because it doesn't fit your theology to accept 2 Israels, 2 circumcisions, 2 Jewrys, 2 children of Abraham. Scripture shows: one is natural the other spiritual. This is something you side-step. Just denying it is not enough to prove your point. Your opinion or mine of themselves means nothing. You need to start addressing the different passages that are been presented to challenge your thoughts.

Our predictiment in the OT was: "at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth (or citizenship) of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world."

Ther good news in this NT era is: "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ ... ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."

Whatever angle you put on it, this tells us that we were once "aliens from the citizenshipof Israel" but now we are "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God."


Yes, he does. In fact, Peter and Paul could say this about each other. James and John could say the same thing about each other. Jesus and Mary could say the same thing about each other. For one Jew to call another Jew a "kinsmen according to the flesh" says nothing at all about the spiritual status of either one.

I didn't say it did. But natural circumcision didn't of itself denote anything. It is the constant reminder that anything of the flesh carried no merit with God. There is nothing favourable in the first birth. It is the second birth that we take on the spiritual. Christ made it clear in John 3:6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”

There you have it, natural pedigree means nothing.


The two Israel's in verse 9:6 are 1) Israel the country, and 2) Israel the ethnic group.

What is the difference? Israel as a nation is the ethnic people. They definately aren't the land-mass. Such a proposition doesn't make sense.



The sentence in last half of 9:6 derives its meaning from the first half, (which seems to never get quoted)
"But it is not as though the word of God has failed." In this we see the Apostle's concern. His Gospel, salvation by faith according to grace, which includes Gentiles as well as Jews, appears to run contrary to God's promise to save all Jews.


I don't know what you are pressing at. The words: "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect" make no dilution of the point that Paul is making. Again, this is another moot point. Romans 9:6-8 still says, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 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."

What part of this is so unclear to you? Let the Bible speak and stop changing it. There is no other meaning to "For they are not all spiritual Israel, which are of natural Israel." Simple!!! The "children of the promise" are those that are born of the Spirit. These are true Israel. The antithesis group are those that are merely the "children of the flesh." This is a first birth/second birth issue.


As he says earlier, "the adoption as sons" belongs to his kinsmen of the flesh. Notice, he didn't say it belonged to his kinsmen of the spirit. That salvation belongs to the Jews as a people is a clear teaching of scripture, and a promise which seems to go unfulfilled.

Please give Bible references in your quotes. Where did you get this?



The Apostle's immediate answer is NOT to say that only "spiritual" sons of Abraham can be saved. While that is true, it isn't his argument in this section. Rather, he argues that salvation is given to whomever God wants to give it according to his choice.


The spiritual children of Abraham are the reddemed - irrespective of ethenticty.



I remind you again, the Apostle makes his case by giving the reader two examples. In the first instance, God is choosing between two of Abraham's children. The difference between the two boys is whether God has chosen the boy or not. No mention is given as to the spiritual state of these boys. The apostle doesn't argue in this passage, as you suggest, that Isaac was spiritual while Ishmael was not. Instead, he argues that Isaac was a child of promise according to a promise God made to Sarah.

For this is the word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son."


The locus of Paul's argument is God's promise, not the spirituality of the sons. It may be true that later in life Isaac came to believe and trust in God. I'm sure he did. But that is not the prominent point of Paul's case.Rather, he intends to show that being an Israelite of the promise has always been according to God's choice. In each of his two examples, a choice is being made between two kinsmen of Paul's flesh. Isaac is a child of promise and Ishmael is not, but the most prominent feature of this idea is the fact that God did the choosing.


I believe you are seeing this wrong. Gal 4:28-29 counteracts your reasoning. It says of us NT believer: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that wasborn after the Spirit." Ishmael was persecuting him who was of the Spirit. Just like the flesh today does the same. The "children of promise" are expressly everyone that is "born after the Spirit."


I agree that Jews and Gentiles are unified under Christ. I do not agree that the apostle intended to suggest that this unified body of Jews and Gentiles is "true Israel". Rather, the Apostle has united them all under Christ, which he calls "a new man." Even if there were a "true Israel", it wouldn't be new since the "true Israel" had been around for centuries, what the Apostle calls "the remnant". There has always been a remnant, he says. But the unification of Jew and Gentile is new.

I agree true Israel has been around for a while, but I disagree that "the unification of Jew and Gentile is new." What about Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Ruth (Ruth 1:16), the widow women of Zarephath that entertained Elijah (1 Kings 17:24), Rahab the harlot and “all her kindred” (Joshua 6:23-25), Naaman (2 Kings 5:15), the Queen of Sheba (Matthew 12:42), the inhabitants of the Gentile city of Ninevah (Jonah 3:5) and “many” of “the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia” became Jews (Esther 8:9-17)? Were these not Gentiles? Where these not "God's people"?


I believe your statement about the "kingdom being taken away" comes from the mouth of Jesus, who spoke of the Jewish leaders not the nation of Israel. The kingdom was being taken from the scribes and Pharisees and given to the Apostles.

I totally disagree. History has proved that they lost their favoured position. Also, what is the nation that received the kingdom?



And while we agree that Jesus Christ is the central focal point, the agent and the means by which these promises will come to pass, it is NOT true that God does not give divine favor to the Jewish race as a people.

We don't have to venture very far from our passage to see this. As the apostle says, "the covenants belong to them." These don't belong to us; they belong to them. They are natural branches; we are grafted in. They belong on the tree; we are put there by faith.


I prefer Scripture. Peter outlines in Acts 10:34-36,“I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all).”

Paul

ShirleyFord
Jun 16th 2008, 04:41 AM
I say amen to you too Shirley. :)

I would love to get Paul to see that all of this is true, AND God will deal with Israel again in the future as a people. What you said and what I said are not incompatible.

Hi Roger,

How are things going?

Are you sure you read my post? Where did I say that God would deal with natural Israel again in the future?

Just reading through your posts here on this thread, I can obviously see that your view of Israel and my view of Israel are not the same. And I've also known you for a long time and know that we are miles apart on our endtime view.


But you are still my brother and I appreciate you greatly. It's great seeing you over here. Welcome!


Shirley

BroRog
Jun 16th 2008, 02:56 PM
Hi Roger,

How are things going?

Hi Shirley. Always a pleasure. :)


Are you sure you read my post? Where did I say that God would deal with natural Israel again in the future?

Opps, that's my bad. I wanted to agree with your post. Then I wanted to add my heartfelt desire. And inadvertently I lead people to wonder whether you agreed with me. My sincere apologies. :blush:


Just reading through your posts here on this thread, I can obviously see that your view of Israel and my view of Israel are not the same. And I've also known you for a long time and know that we are miles apart on our endtime view.

That's true. But then as the time draws closer, I'm hoping that God will bless me with clarity. So I continue to listen, even as I post my own ideas. Who knows, I could totally be off.


But you are still my brother and I appreciate you greatly. It's great seeing you over here. Welcome!

Thanks for the welcome. I appreciate you saying so.

John146
Jun 17th 2008, 03:31 PM
Yes, I said Jeremiah 31:31-34 has not come to pass yet. As far as I know, no one believes Jeremiah 31:31-34, taken at face value, has come to pass.
I assume (correct me if I misunderstand your view) that when you say, "it's already been fulfilled" you place the fulfillment on some etheric plane?

Don't you understand that the New Covenant has everything to do with the shed blood of Christ on the cross as a sacrifice and offering for the sins of the world? The book of Hebrews makes that clear. You turn it into a covenant that is only for Israel and won't be fulfilled until the future. That isn't what Hebrews tells us!

timmyb
Jun 17th 2008, 05:14 PM
Don't you understand that the New Covenant has everything to do with the shed blood of Christ on the cross as a sacrifice and offering for the sins of the world? The book of Hebrews makes that clear. You turn it into a covenant that is only for Israel and won't be fulfilled until the future. That isn't what Hebrews tells us!


I agree with you John in that the covenant is about Christ's blood... But you cannot cancel out the unfinished covenant that God has made to Israel regarding him removing ungodliness from Jacob. He still has promises that he has yet to fulfill in our lifetimes regarding Jacob and his children. The New Covenant is a salvation covenant regarding how we approach God. That's what Hebrews tells us. That only means that Jews cannot approach God based on their religion, they can only do so by the blood of Christ. And Romans 11 tells us that they will as a nation do so before the end

Teke
Jun 17th 2008, 05:19 PM
Yes, I said Jeremiah 31:31-34 has not come to pass yet. As far as I know, no one believes Jeremiah 31:31-34, taken at face value, has come to pass. I assume (correct me if I misunderstand your view) that when you say, "it's already been fulfilled" you place the fulfillment on some etheric plane?

Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Jeremiah 38:31-34 in the Sept.), the implanting of the new covenant, the law in the heart, was clearly effected with the coming of Christ. (2 Cor. 3:3, Heb. 10:15-18)

John146
Jun 17th 2008, 06:08 PM
I agree with you John in that the covenant is about Christ's blood... But you cannot cancel out the unfinished covenant that God has made to Israel regarding him removing ungodliness from Jacob. He still has promises that he has yet to fulfill in our lifetimes regarding Jacob and his children. The New Covenant is a salvation covenant regarding how we approach God. That's what Hebrews tells us. That only means that Jews cannot approach God based on their religion, they can only do so by the blood of Christ. And Romans 11 tells us that they will as a nation do so before the end

Romans 11 speaks of the very same New Covenant that Hebrews speaks about. Compare the following passsages and then try to tell me that Paul and Jesus were speaking of different covenants in these passages:

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” - Romans 11:26-27

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. - Matt 26:26-28

timmyb
Jun 17th 2008, 07:33 PM
Romans 11 speaks of the very same New Covenant that Hebrews speaks about. Compare the following passsages and then try to tell me that Paul and Jesus were speaking of different covenants in these passages:

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” - Romans 11:26-27

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”
27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.
28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. - Matt 26:26-28

I was saying that the New Covenant does not in any way cancel out the promises that God has made to Israel. He in no way rewrote the covenant he made with Israel in the sense of that they are no longer the people he has chosen. He will take away the sins of Jacob in the manner of Christ's blood. But he will do that on the basis that they are still his chosen people.

John146
Jun 17th 2008, 08:22 PM
I was saying that the New Covenant does not in any way cancel out the promises that God has made to Israel. He in no way rewrote the covenant he made with Israel in the sense of that they are no longer the people he has chosen. He will take away the sins of Jacob in the manner of Christ's blood. But he will do that on the basis that they are still his chosen people.

He has already done it. His blood has been sufficient for Israel just as much as anyone else over the last 2,000 years or so. But an Israelite must "abide not still in unbelief" in order to be grafted in. That has been true over the past 2,000 years or so and isn't a condition that applies only to some time in the future. If an Israelite descendant stopped abiding in unbelief 100 or 1,000 years ago they were grafted in. If an Israelite descendant stops abiding in unbelief today they will be grafted in. That is not a condition that will only begin to apply some time in the future.

timmyb
Jun 17th 2008, 10:18 PM
He has already done it. His blood has been sufficient for Israel just as much as anyone else over the last 2,000 years or so. But an Israelite must "abide not still in unbelief" in order to be grafted in. That has been true over the past 2,000 years or so and isn't a condition that applies only to some time in the future. If an Israelite descendant stopped abiding in unbelief 100 or 1,000 years ago they were grafted in. If an Israelite descendant stops abiding in unbelief today they will be grafted in. That is not a condition that will only begin to apply some time in the future.


Yeah, I'm not saying that it's impossible for any Jew to be saved right now... but the reality is that all Israel is not saved according to Romans 11:26... the promise is that Israel "as a nation" will be saved by the blood of the lamb... I'm not saying that salvation for Israel is not possible now... Messianics disprove that... Every Jew needs Jesus to be saved, there is no other way.

So, what I'm saying in a nutshell is that we are in agreement on the application and reality of that happening today...

but it's not happening now and it's still yet to happen

Merton
Jun 18th 2008, 12:45 AM
One mans view--


http://www.teachinghearts.org/dre17httisrael.html



=

DeafPosttrib
Jun 18th 2008, 01:38 AM
Morton,

Romans 11:25-27 didn't say anything about phyical nation. That chapter talks about individual. Not nation. Romans chapter 11 says nothing of supposed future restored physical nation of Israel again.

We are now spiritual Israel, because Christ already reconciled both Gentiles and Jews became one by calvary 2,000 years ago according to Ephesians chapter 2.

Romans chapter 11 discusses about the salvation of individual who are in Christ.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

jewel4Christ
Jun 18th 2008, 04:05 AM
Morton,

Romans 11:25-27 didn't say anything about phyical nation. That chapter talks about individual. Not nation. Romans chapter 11 says nothing of supposed future restored physical nation of Israel again.

We are now spiritual Israel, because Christ already reconciled both Gentiles and Jews became one by calvary 2,000 years ago according to Ephesians chapter 2.

Romans chapter 11 discusses about the salvation of individual who are in Christ.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!


Hi deafpostrib!

...they are blinded until the fulness of the gentiles are come in. When does that take place?


peaceandlove,

janet

BroRog
Jun 18th 2008, 02:39 PM
Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Jeremiah 38:31-34 in the Sept.), the implanting of the new covenant, the law in the heart, was clearly effected with the coming of Christ. (2 Cor. 3:3, Heb. 10:15-18)

Teke,

Timmy correctly points out the fact that the Jeremiah promise of a new covenant involves the entire nation of Israel. While it's true that many of us have taken advantage of the new covenant, the promise to Israel is for "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." Thus the promise is national in scope and yet to be fulfilled.

John146
Jun 18th 2008, 02:55 PM
Teke,

Timmy correctly points out the fact that the Jeremiah promise of a new covenant involves the entire nation of Israel. While it's true that many of us have taken advantage of the new covenant, the promise to Israel is for "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." Thus the promise is national in scope and yet to be fulfilled.

Scripture says the new covenant has already been established. You seem to think that it hasn't. I'm going to agree with scripture.

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8:6-13

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. - Hebrews 10:9-10

The old covenant was taken away and vanished and the new covenant was established to take its place. These scriptures I quoted clearly teach this.

Teke
Jun 18th 2008, 03:41 PM
Teke,

Timmy correctly points out the fact that the Jeremiah promise of a new covenant involves the entire nation of Israel. While it's true that many of us have taken advantage of the new covenant, the promise to Israel is for "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." Thus the promise is national in scope and yet to be fulfilled.

God's promise to us all was fulfilled. We didn't all just automatically believe and embrace salvation. So why do you believe it to be any different for the Jew. They are as we are, part of the whole of humanity.

BroRog
Jun 18th 2008, 07:37 PM
Scripture says the new covenant has already been established. You seem to think that it hasn't. I'm going to agree with scripture.

6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8:6-13

9Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. - Hebrews 10:9-10

The old covenant was taken away and vanished and the new covenant was established to take its place. These scriptures I quoted clearly teach this.

John,

Do you believe that the scriptures you quoted negates Jeremiah 31:34?

John146
Jun 18th 2008, 07:51 PM
John,

Do you believe that the scriptures you quoted negates Jeremiah 31:34?

The scriptures I quoted show the true meaning of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:34.

BroRog
Jun 18th 2008, 08:11 PM
God's promise to us all was fulfilled. We didn't all just automatically believe and embrace salvation. So why do you believe it to be any different for the Jew. They are as we are, part of the whole of humanity.

Excellent question.

I will answer your question in two parts.

First, I believe the Bible makes a significant distinction between Israel as a nation and a Jew as a single individual. To understand my view, which I believe is Biblical, we need to maintain that distinction. If we don't maintain that distinction, we end up talking past each other.

For instance, here is what Timmy said a few posts back.


I was saying that the New Covenant does not in any way cancel out the promises that God has made to Israel. He in no way rewrote the covenant he made with Israel in the sense of that they are no longer the people he has chosen. He will take away the sins of Jacob in the manner of Christ's blood. But he will do that on the basis that they are still his chosen people.

Timmy's comments focus on Israel as a group, not individual Jews. He rightly points out the fact that God intends to treat Israel as a group, taking away that nation's sins on the same basis as he takes away the sins of individual Jews and Gentiles today.

Now, let's look at John's response.


He has already done it. His blood has been sufficient for Israel just as much as anyone else over the last 2,000 years or so. But an Israelite must "abide not still in unbelief" in order to be grafted in. That has been true over the past 2,000 years or so and isn't a condition that applies only to some time in the future. If an Israelite descendant stopped abiding in unbelief 100 or 1,000 years ago they were grafted in. If an Israelite descendant stops abiding in unbelief today they will be grafted in. That is not a condition that will only begin to apply some time in the future.

What John says is generally true, but it contains some errors. For one, he says that salvation has been available to Israelites for over 2,000 years or so. This is false since Israel wasn't reestablished until 1948. His statement is in error because we haven't had Israelites since Rome destroyed that country and abolished it. John is making the same mistake I used to make, confusing Jews with Israelites.

I totally agree with John, in this sense. Salvation has been available to Jews for over 2,000 years, just as it has been for Gentiles. But since Israel hasn't been a country for that long, we can't say salvation has been available to Israelites.

Now, this may sound like unnecessary semantics but it isn't. And to explain why, I will give you the second part of my answer.

If I read my prophecy right, God intends to restore his reputation through a process that involves his relationship to the country of Israel. I'm not talking about individual Jews here. I'm talking about the country. The Jeremiah 31 prophecy applies to the country of Israel when God will save each and every man, woman and child in that country at that specific, single, one-time event.

You wouldn't want to be a citizen of the country after this. While it would be fantastic to live in a country populated entirely by Christians, God is going to bring the other nations against it in war. This time period will be so intense that it will test the new faith of these new Jewish believers living in Israel. Faith will mean the difference between life or death, as it is written. And only those of faith will survive the war.

At that time, God will supernaturally protect Israel from her enemies. This protection will be so miraculous that there will be no doubt that God himself has protected Israel from destruction.


Anyway, the point is, God is saving both Jews and Gentiles individually right now. But at a certain time of God's choosing, he will save the entire country of Israel and then test her faith as the nations around her come to do battle with her in the "Valley of Decision."

BroRog
Jun 18th 2008, 08:22 PM
The scriptures I quoted show the true meaning of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:34.

The scriptures you quoted don't deal with the concepts present in verse 34.

They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

I highlighted the part that is yet to be fulfilled for Israel. Right now, Christians are in Israel trying to teach them to "know the Lord." Messianics are doing the same thing. We are all trying to witness to Jewish men and women, asking them to know the Lord. Some respond and others don't.

I also highlighted another aspect of the prophecy that hasn't been fulfilled. Right now, only a small fraction of Israelites know the Lord. But then, all Israelites will know him. There hasn't been a time in Israelite history when it could be said that they all know him.

So, teaching is still being done; and only a fraction of Israelites know him. But then, they will not need to teach each other to know the Lord because they will all know him.

Mark F
Jun 18th 2008, 08:35 PM
BroRog and timmyb,

I agree with your understanding of a future salvation of the people of Israel. It seems to me the Scripture you highlighted above is yet to be, we still must tell others of God and salvation, but that seems to say that God will put that knowledge within them all, whoever is remaining after the time of Jacob's trouble.

The need to recognise a distinction between the Church and Israel allows for this to be seen.

We live in the age of grace, just wait until then, there will be no greater display of the soveriegnly determined grace upon His people...

“Known to God from eternity are all His works." Acts 15:18

Naphal
Jun 18th 2008, 08:43 PM
John,

Do you believe that the scriptures you quoted negates Jeremiah 31:34?


They go hand in hand. When all is fulfilled and finished, all in Christ will know God as much as anyone else. No one will have to teach the other but nothing there suggests this happens immediately when the new covenant begins. It is clear that the new covenant exists and has since Christ. You cannot deny the scriptures say this. You are stubbornly holding on to a misinterpretation of Jeremiah in contradiction to everything else.

The true question is, "Do you believe that your personal interpretation of Jeremiah 31:34 negates the rest of new testament scripture?"

losthorizon
Jun 18th 2008, 08:51 PM
If I read my prophecy right, God intends to restore his reputation through a process that involves his relationship to the country of Israel. I'm not talking about individual Jews here. I'm talking about the country. The Jeremiah 31 prophecy applies to the country of Israel when God will save each and every man, woman and child in that country at that specific, single, one-time event.


The nation of Israel has never been saved as a nation nor will they be in some future event. Salvation is an individual matter between the individual and God. Whatever hope those who live in the secular nation of Israel have for salvation it is the same hope that all individuals have regardless of national origin. Salvation is only through the blood of Christ as each individual “obeys from the heart” the gospel of grace…
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. (Rev 3)

Teke
Jun 18th 2008, 09:04 PM
Excellent question.

I will answer your question in two parts.

First, I believe the Bible makes a significant distinction between Israel as a nation and a Jew as a single individual. To understand my view, which I believe is Biblical, we need to maintain that distinction. If we don't maintain that distinction, we end up talking past each other.

For instance, here is what Timmy said a few posts back.



Timmy's comments focus on Israel as a group, not individual Jews. He rightly points out the fact that God intends to treat Israel as a group, taking away that nation's sins on the same basis as he takes away the sins of individual Jews and Gentiles today.

Now, let's look at John's response.



What John says is generally true, but it contains some errors. For one, he says that salvation has been available to Israelites for over 2,000 years or so. This is false since Israel wasn't reestablished until 1948. His statement is in error because we haven't had Israelites since Rome destroyed that country and abolished it. John is making the same mistake I used to make, confusing Jews with Israelites.

I totally agree with John, in this sense. Salvation has been available to Jews for over 2,000 years, just as it has been for Gentiles. But since Israel hasn't been a country for that long, we can't say salvation has been available to Israelites.

Now, this may sound like unnecessary semantics but it isn't. And to explain why, I will give you the second part of my answer.

If I read my prophecy right, God intends to restore his reputation through a process that involves his relationship to the country of Israel. I'm not talking about individual Jews here. I'm talking about the country. The Jeremiah 31 prophecy applies to the country of Israel when God will save each and every man, woman and child in that country at that specific, single, one-time event.

You wouldn't want to be a citizen of the country after this. While it would be fantastic to live in a country populated entirely by Christians, God is going to bring the other nations against it in war. This time period will be so intense that it will test the new faith of these new Jewish believers living in Israel. Faith will mean the difference between life or death, as it is written. And only those of faith will survive the war.

At that time, God will supernaturally protect Israel from her enemies. This protection will be so miraculous that there will be no doubt that God himself has protected Israel from destruction.


Anyway, the point is, God is saving both Jews and Gentiles individually right now. But at a certain time of God's choosing, he will save the entire country of Israel and then test her faith as the nations around her come to do battle with her in the "Valley of Decision."

I doubt that is what Timmy meant. What your proposing is Zionism or dispensationalism based on your eschatology.

But since your focus is the nation in it's geographical local. Jesus, who is God has already judged them. Just as He did other nations in scripture. And when He says their done, as in to never rise again, He means it. History is your proof of this. Look at Egypt in Ezekial 29, sounds a lot like what He does with Israel, disperses them among the nations after their desolation.

timmyb
Jun 18th 2008, 11:25 PM
BroRog and timmyb,

I agree with your understanding of a future salvation of the people of Israel. It seems to me the Scripture you highlighted above is yet to be, we still must tell others of God and salvation, but that seems to say that God will put that knowledge within them all, whoever is remaining after the time of Jacob's trouble.

The need to recognise a distinction between the Church and Israel allows for this to be seen.

We live in the age of grace, just wait until then, there will be no greater display of the soveriegnly determined grace upon His people...

“Known to God from eternity are all His works." Acts 15:18

I totally agree... But at the same time, we are not in some special age... God still deals with man on the basis of man humbling himself... He has always given grace to the humble and resisted the proud... He has only changed the WAY we approach him... by the blood of his son and by his spirit...

Israel doesn't just get in by some special way, they will have to accept Christ to approach the father. the blood of lambs and goats was never enough... The way they will approach God will be the same way as the Gentiles, but the basis on which they will all be saved is that they are still God's chosen people and he has an unfulfilled covenant with them.

timmyb
Jun 18th 2008, 11:27 PM
Zionism isn't totally wrong... As long as it's on the basis of evangelizing Jews and seeing them saved... I love Israel as the nation and I love the Jewish people.... I love Zionism and I love Zionism... God says that the land will be named Beulah for it will be married to the Lord....

Zionism is good, but it's got to be Biblical or else it's just humanistic sentiment.

Naphal
Jun 18th 2008, 11:31 PM
The way they will approach God will be the same way as the Gentiles, but the basis on which they will all be saved is that they are still God's chosen people and he has an unfulfilled covenant with them.

There is no unfulfilled covenant that was made with Israel. The one Israel used to have with God has been broken and is null and void due to their unfaithfulness. It's no different than having a contract with a company to do work for you and they break the contract so you make it null and void and make a new contract with a new company. There are no covenant promises that exist from the Sinai covenant.

Naphal
Jun 18th 2008, 11:46 PM
I love Israel as the nation and I love the Jewish people....

Do you love Iraq and it's people as well, or Africa and it's peoples....you get the point. There is no valid reason to devote love for a race of people regardless of what their standing used to be with God or their possible standing in the future. Israel will be treated no differently than any other group of people.

tgallison
Jun 19th 2008, 01:38 PM
[quote=matthew94;1662069]God's people in the OT were made up of believing Jews and converted Gentiles.
They were called 'Israel'

matthew94 greetings

Was Enoch God's people, was Noah God's people, was Abram God's people? IMO born again believers is a better term.

Israel was not necessarily a believing Jew. Perhaps we need to define believing. Was one born an Israelite, and then had to be born again spiritually to be a believer.


God's people in the NT are made up of believing Jews and converted Gentiles.
They are called 'the church'

It is either believing Jews and Gentiles, or converted Jews and Gentiles. If the term used is convert, then it means to convert to God. Perhaps, born again believers is a better term.

If a Gentile converted to a Jew, that made him one of the covenant people. It didn't make him born again. His only hope was that he remained righteous in his own right and never sinned. A Jew under the covenant was required to be righteous in his own right. Salvation comes when you realize your own righteous can not save you, and you accept the righteousness of God.

Look at King Saul, was he a covenant Israelite? You become a covenant person by birth into the covenant nation, but that doesn't make you born again. For there are two births.

terrell

BroRog
Jun 19th 2008, 02:53 PM
They go hand in hand. When all is fulfilled and finished, all in Christ will know God as much as anyone else. No one will have to teach the other but nothing there suggests this happens immediately when the new covenant begins. It is clear that the new covenant exists and has since Christ. You cannot deny the scriptures say this. You are stubbornly holding on to a misinterpretation of Jeremiah in contradiction to everything else.

The true question is, "Do you believe that your personal interpretation of Jeremiah 31:34 negates the rest of new testament scripture?"

That's just it. Nothing I said contradicts anything you said, neither does it contradict the rest of the scriptures.

As a thought experiment, suppose Jeremiah had said, "At that time Billy Graham will preach a sermon and the entire stadium will come to Christ."

Would that violate the scriptures?

timmyb
Jun 19th 2008, 04:52 PM
Do you love Iraq and it's people as well, or Africa and it's peoples....you get the point. There is no valid reason to devote love for a race of people regardless of what their standing used to be with God or their possible standing in the future. Israel will be treated no differently than any other group of people.

you're absolutely right... Israel is no different than any other nation... Except that God has zeal for Zion and he didn't say that in vain... he didn't just change his mind in the New Testament... although Israel is apostate and won't come to Christ, they are the prodigals that God is waiting at the end of the road for... and we have a choice in this matter... are we going to partner with God's heart in his zeal for Zion even though it seemingly bears little to no relevance to our every day lives? Even though it doesn't seemingly bear any relevance to our salvation... The issue of Israel is the issue of God's people partnering with God's heart to see them come to salvation... it's not about me or you or Israel... It's about God.

wpm
Jun 19th 2008, 11:37 PM
The nation of Israel has never been saved as a nation nor will they be in some future event. Salvation is an individual matter between the individual and God. Whatever hope those who live in the secular nation of Israel have for salvation it is the same hope that all individuals have regardless of national origin. Salvation is only through the blood of Christ as each individual “obeys from the heart” the gospel of grace…

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. 21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. 22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. (Rev 3)


Amen. We are saved by grace not by race.

Paul

tgallison
Jun 19th 2008, 11:39 PM
Amen. We are saved by grace not by race.

Paul

I would agree with that.

terrell

wpm
Jun 19th 2008, 11:40 PM
you're absolutely right... Israel is no different than any other nation... Except that God has zeal for Zion and he didn't say that in vain... he didn't just change his mind in the New Testament... although Israel is apostate and won't come to Christ, they are the prodigals that God is waiting at the end of the road for... and we have a choice in this matter... are we going to partner with God's heart in his zeal for Zion even though it seemingly bears little to no relevance to our every day lives? Even though it doesn't seemingly bear any relevance to our salvation... The issue of Israel is the issue of God's people partnering with God's heart to see them come to salvation... it's not about me or you or Israel... It's about God.

Zion is the elect - the redemmed - us. Hebrews 12:18 says, “For ye are not come (plural perfect active indicative) unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest.”

Hebrews 12:22 says, “But ye are come (plural perfect active indicative) unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.”

These highlighted references in the original relate to the present, and are active, meaning the subject continues to exist in the state indicated by the verb. They relate to the here-and-now and are ongoing. They speak of our immediate entry into the kingdom of God and our current spiritual standing in the New Jerusalem. The heavenly Jerusalem is more than a future hope (even though it most assuredly is that), it is a present reality.

Our understanding of Hebrews 12 is corroborated by Ephesians 2:5-6, which says, speaking of God, “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” We belong to Christ and are therefore spiritually seated with Him today. Ephesians 1:3 also supports, saying, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”

We have left the old, imperfect, temporal arrangement forever and have entered into the fulfilment and reality of the New. The Old Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant. The New economy isn’t simply an upgrade of the Old, but a comprehensive replacement of it.

Paul

wpm
Jun 19th 2008, 11:43 PM
I would agree with that.

terrell

Doesn't sound like it with your theology. You say that if one is an Isaraeli national they will be saved. Why not advise every Muslim and Hindo if they won't bow to Jesus to become a Jew? They will then be assured salvation according to you.

Paul

Naphal
Jun 20th 2008, 12:32 AM
That's just it. Nothing I said contradicts anything you said, neither does it contradict the rest of the scriptures.

You believe the new covenant isn't even in existence yet lol....that contradicts scripture.

Naphal
Jun 20th 2008, 12:34 AM
you're absolutely right... Israel is no different than any other nation... Except that God has zeal for Zion and he didn't say that in vain... he didn't just change his mind in the New Testament... although Israel is apostate and won't come to Christ, they are the prodigals that God is waiting at the end of the road for... and we have a choice in this matter... are we going to partner with God's heart in his zeal for Zion even though it seemingly bears little to no relevance to our every day lives? Even though it doesn't seemingly bear any relevance to our salvation... The issue of Israel is the issue of God's people partnering with God's heart to see them come to salvation... it's not about me or you or Israel... It's about God.

Gods people are Christians. Jews that do not follow Christ are not God's people. They were many generations ago but that special favor that God showed to Jacob and his children was taken away just as easily as it was placed upon them.

tgallison
Jun 20th 2008, 01:01 AM
Doesn't sound like it with your theology. You say that if one is an Isaraeli national they will be saved. Why not advise every Muslim and Hindo if they won't bow to Jesus to become a Jew? They will then be assure3d salvatiuon according to you.

Paul

Paul could you quote the post where I said that?

terrell

Free_from_sin
Jun 20th 2008, 01:42 AM
Always wondered this. Seems to me to be the same thing, but pretty much no one agrees with me. I want to study it a little, so some different views from different people will give me a starting point, a point of reference. My own view might be skewed all by itself.

Good question, beforHim. Yes. In reading the NT we find that what was natural in the OT is now spiritual in the NT. We, the church, are New Jerusalem/ spiritual Israel. There is, of course, a natural nation of Israel, but they are not God's spiritual people (because they rejected Him) nor will the ever be again unless they choose to come in through Jesus Christ, thus becoming a part of Spiritual Israel.

Here is the definition of a true Jew in the New Testament: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew, which is 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." Romans 2:28-29.
And "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraha, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of promise are counted for the seed." Romans 9:6-8

We, all of the Christians, are the chlidren of promise, just as Isaac was Abraham's promised son, not born according to the flesh (nat. Jews), but according to the promise (sp. Jews).

It doesn't matter whether a Christian is physically Jew or Gentile, God shows no partiality, His people are one people, the true Jews. "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:12-13

BroRog
Jun 20th 2008, 04:46 AM
You believe the new covenant isn't even in existence yet lol....that contradicts scripture.

You didn't answer my question. Was it too difficult?

Naphal
Jun 20th 2008, 04:50 AM
You didn't answer my question. Was it too difficult?

Not too difficult, just too unnecessary.

manichunter
Jun 20th 2008, 06:31 AM
Not too difficult, just too unnecessary.

Have you read the book of Romans

Rom 2
28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.\

Rom 11
11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, F58 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+11&t=nkj&st=1&new=1&l=en#F) if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26And so all Israel will be saved, F59 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+11&t=nkj&st=1&new=1&l=en#F) as it is written:

Co 10:18 -
Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

Ro 9:6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+9:6&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

Ro 9:4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+9:4&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;

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--

Joh 4:22 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=joh+4:22&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) - You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.\\

Ro 1:16 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+1:16&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

Ro 10:12 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+10:12&translation=nkj&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) -For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him.

The body of Christ is not a gentile led body. Gentiles are never given a covenant of their own. Notice the words covenants given to Israel in reference to Israel being the partner God married. They brought into the tree of Spiritual Israel. This half the problem. Gentiles think that they are their own tree. There is no distinction between the two, they have become one on the same tree of Israel the covenant partner with a Jewish bridgegroom and bride.

Naphal
Jun 20th 2008, 06:39 AM
The body of Christ is not a gentile led body.

No Gentile nor Jew leads the body of Christ. Christ is the lead and the rest follow.



Gentiles are never given a covenant of their own.

Gentiles have the same exact covenant that anyone else has that is in Christ.



Notice the words covenants given to Israel in reference to Israel being the partner God married.

Israel was divorced by God and that "marriage contract" was done away with.




They brought into the tree of Spiritual Israel. This half the problem. Gentiles think that they are their own tree.

Gentile Christians are part of the olive tree. Unbelieving Jews are not part of the tree.




There is no distinction between the two, they have become one on the same tree of Israel the covenant partner with a Jewish bridgegroom and bride.

Was Jesus Jewish before he was born as a human? Why would he be afterwards? I think we need to STOP interjecting race into Christianity. Race means NOTHING to God anymore.

manichunter
Jun 20th 2008, 12:31 PM
No Gentile nor Jew leads the body of Christ. Christ is the lead and the rest follow.




Gentiles have the same exact covenant that anyone else has that is in Christ.




Israel was divorced by God and that "marriage contract" was done away with.





Gentile Christians are part of the olive tree. Unbelieving Jews are not part of the tree.





Was Jesus Jewish before he was born as a human? Why would he be afterwards? I think we need to STOP interjecting race into Christianity. Race means NOTHING to God anymore.

Who gave them the name Israel and what does it mean? God gave to them and it means power with God, prince of God.
Ge 32:28 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ge+32:28&translation=kjv&st=1&new=1&sr=1&l=en) And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.


You have to just purpose run over Scripture to not understand Romans 11, about how the believer Jews was left on an already existing tree that became spiritual. The natural jews that did not believe were cut off.

timmyb
Jun 20th 2008, 02:30 PM
Israel was the name given to Jacob after he wrestled the angel...

it means he who strives or wrestles with God..

ironic.. they are still striving with God today

John146
Jun 20th 2008, 02:35 PM
BroRog and timmyb,

I agree with your understanding of a future salvation of the people of Israel. It seems to me the Scripture you highlighted above is yet to be, we still must tell others of God and salvation, but that seems to say that God will put that knowledge within them all, whoever is remaining after the time of Jacob's trouble.

The need to recognise a distinction between the Church and Israel allows for this to be seen.

We live in the age of grace, just wait until then, there will be no greater display of the soveriegnly determined grace upon His people...

“Known to God from eternity are all His works." Acts 15:18

You are trying to tell us that God will just save them all and put the knowledge of Him in them, regardless of what they believed up to that point? There will be no requirement for them to repent and put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ?

timmyb
Jun 20th 2008, 02:42 PM
You are trying to tell us that God will just save them all and put the knowledge of Him in them, regardless of what they believed up to that point? There will be no requirement for them to repent and put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ?

absolutely not... they will have to come to God on the basis of the blood of Christ... they in no way countermand that reality... but the reality is that they will all accept Christ before the end... on the basis that God has not rescinded his calling upon them as his chosen people... For the gifts and CALLINGS of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

Israel will go through hell on earth before that reality will hit them. The reality of God will be shoved in their faces. They will see the priesthood unto the Lord done by his church in the manner of prayer and fasting in the last days. They will see God on the face of a Gentile and controversy will ensue in their hearts, thus the church provoking the Jews to jealousy. The church will need a revelation of how much mercy they have received in order to extend mercy to the Jews in those days. So, we need to look upon Israel with the Heart of the Lord in his mercy. He still desires Zion and he has still chosen Zion according to Zechariah 1.

But, the reality is that God wrestles with Jacob now, and in the end, God will have his blessing from Israel. Israel will come to God for the first time in history on HIS terms and not their own.

BroRog
Jun 20th 2008, 02:51 PM
Not too difficult, just too unnecessary.

I'm trying to have a conversation here, not win an argument. I asked you about the Billy Graham concert because it gets at the heart of your objection, which continues to be, "you are saying that these Jews are coming to salvation another way apart from Christ", which is completely misunderstanding our point.

We are saying that this future nation of Israel will be saved in exactly the same way that we all get saved -- in Christ. The ONLY difference is timing, which my Billy Graham hypothetical story illustrates.

The question was, does a mass conversion of people, say at an evangelism meeting, contradict scripture? If the answer is no, then a mass conversion of Jews living in Israel doesn't contradict scripture either.

What's the difference?

John146
Jun 20th 2008, 02:55 PM
What John says is generally true, but it contains some errors. For one, he says that salvation has been available to Israelites for over 2,000 years or so. This is false since Israel wasn't reestablished until 1948. His statement is in error because we haven't had Israelites since Rome destroyed that country and abolished it. John is making the same mistake I used to make, confusing Jews with Israelites.

You misunderstood me. I was referring to the descendants of the nation of Israel. Obviously, even though Israel ceased being a nation when Rome destroyed it, there still were descendants of those people even up until 1948. Those are the people I was talking about.



Now, this may sound like unnecessary semantics but it isn't. And to explain why, I will give you the second part of my answer.

If I read my prophecy right, God intends to restore his reputation through a process that involves his relationship to the country of Israel. I'm not talking about individual Jews here. I'm talking about the country. The Jeremiah 31 prophecy applies to the country of Israel when God will save each and every man, woman and child in that country at that specific, single, one-time event.

Hebrews 8:6-13 makes it clear that Jeremiah 31:31-34 has to do with the new covenant, which was established by the shed blood of Christ. You seem to think the covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 was made specifically for the nation of Israel. Why then are Gentile believers every bit as much covered by the blood of the new covenant as Jewish believers are? The covenant was made for true Israel, not the nation of Israel. God does not put His law into the minds and hearts of those who reject Christ. He puts His law into the minds and hearts of those who put their faith and trust in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

You are apparently not seeing that there is the nation of Israel, but there is also the Israel of God, which consists only of those who believe in His Son. God's covenant applies to the Israel of God, not the nation of Israel. As Paul said, "They are not all Israel which are of Israel" and "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.".



You wouldn't want to be a citizen of the country after this. While it would be fantastic to live in a country populated entirely by Christians, God is going to bring the other nations against it in war. This time period will be so intense that it will test the new faith of these new Jewish believers living in Israel. Faith will mean the difference between life or death, as it is written. And only those of faith will survive the war.

At that time, God will supernaturally protect Israel from her enemies. This protection will be so miraculous that there will be no doubt that God himself has protected Israel from destruction.

Nice story, but where is the scriptural support? All I see is your speculation and opinions.



Anyway, the point is, God is saving both Jews and Gentiles individually right now. But at a certain time of God's choosing, he will save the entire country of Israel and then test her faith as the nations around her come to do battle with her in the "Valley of Decision."

So, you believe God is a respecter of persons then, even though He is not. You think He will save Israel, not because they repent and put their faith in Christ, but just because they are the nation of Israel?

John146
Jun 20th 2008, 02:57 PM
absolutely not... they will have to come to God on the basis of the blood of Christ... they in no way countermand that reality... but the reality is that they will all accept Christ before the end... on the basis that God has not rescinded his calling upon them as his chosen people... For the gifts and CALLINGS of God are irrevocable. Romans 11:29

Israel will go through hell on earth before that reality will hit them. The reality of God will be shoved in their faces. They will see the priesthood unto the Lord done by his church in the manner of prayer and fasting in the last days. They will see God on the face of a Gentile and controversy will ensue in their hearts, thus the church provoking the Jews to jealousy. The church will need a revelation of how much mercy they have received in order to extend mercy to the Jews in those days. So, we need to look upon Israel with the Heart of the Lord in his mercy. He still desires Zion and he has still chosen Zion according to Zechariah 1.

But, the reality is that God wrestles with Jacob now, and in the end, God will have his blessing from Israel. Israel will come to God for the first time in history on HIS terms and not their own.

Thanks, but I was asking the question to Mark F specifically. Please let him answer for himself.

timmyb
Jun 20th 2008, 03:06 PM
Thanks, but I was asking the question to Mark F specifically. Please let him answer for himself.

i was just letting you know where I stand... sorry for being so intrusive

John146
Jun 20th 2008, 03:15 PM
i was just letting you know where I stand... sorry for being so intrusive

I pretty much already knew where you stood, but I want to know what Mark F meant by his statements and he may not believe exactly the same as you. I'm not offended that you replied to me, but I'm particularly curious as to what Mark himself meant by what he said in his post.

timmyb
Jun 20th 2008, 04:31 PM
I pretty much already knew where you stood, but I want to know what Mark F meant by his statements and he may not believe exactly the same as you. I'm not offended that you replied to me, but I'm particularly curious as to what Mark himself meant by what he said in his post.

oh ok... i was wondering who you were addressing with the question... you cool with me john

Mark F
Jun 20th 2008, 05:36 PM
You are trying to tell us that God will just save them all and put the knowledge of Him in them, regardless of what they believed up to that point? There will be no requirement for them to repent and put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ?

I believe that they will repent and believe. Who is it who predestinates? Who is it who calls? Who is it who justifies? And who is it who glorifies?

John 6:44-47

44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

I do not imply they will not have to repent and believe, but as I said it will be a most awesome display of the soveriegn grace of God yet.

Paul said plainly "All Israel" will be saved, and I simply believe that, how God will accomplish this is beyond me, I just take the plain meaning of the text and believe it.

timmyb
Jun 20th 2008, 05:41 PM
I believe that they will repent and believe. Who is it who predestinates? Who is it who calls? Who is it who justifies? And who is it who glorifies?

John 6:44-47

44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

I do not imply they will not have to repent and believe, but as I said it will be a most awesome display of the soveriegn grace of God yet.

Paul said plainly "All Israel" will be saved, and I simply believe that, how God will accomplish this is beyond me, I just take the plain meaning of the text and believe it.

That's the issue of Israel... the issue of Israel is the issue of God's sovereignty and the choice of man to choose God and his sovereignty... such as the issue of the garden of Eden... he chose a tree and left the rest in man's hands whether they will cooperate with God's sovereignty or not... will man choose God's desires even though it has little relevance to their everyday lives?... this is where man's salvation will be tested, this is where if we get the mystery wrong we place our very souls in jeporady

John146
Jun 20th 2008, 06:25 PM
Good question, beforHim. Yes. In reading the NT we find that what was natural in the OT is now spiritual in the NT. We, the church, are New Jerusalem/ spiritual Israel. There is, of course, a natural nation of Israel, but they are not God's spiritual people (because they rejected Him) nor will the ever be again unless they choose to come in through Jesus Christ, thus becoming a part of Spiritual Israel.

Here is the definition of a true Jew in the New Testament: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; But he is a Jew, which is 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." Romans 2:28-29.
And "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraha, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of promise are counted for the seed." Romans 9:6-8

We, all of the Christians, are the chlidren of promise, just as Isaac was Abraham's promised son, not born according to the flesh (nat. Jews), but according to the promise (sp. Jews).

It doesn't matter whether a Christian is physically Jew or Gentile, God shows no partiality, His people are one people, the true Jews. "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Romans 10:12-13

I agree. Great post.

John146
Jun 20th 2008, 06:28 PM
I believe that they will repent and believe. Who is it who predestinates? Who is it who calls? Who is it who justifies? And who is it who glorifies?

Who is it who is not a respecter of persons?




John 6:44-47

44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."

I do not imply they will not have to repent and believe, but as I said it will be a most awesome display of the soveriegn grace of God yet.

Paul said plainly "All Israel" will be saved, and I simply believe that, how God will accomplish this is beyond me, I just take the plain meaning of the text and believe it.

Who do you believe is "all Israel" in the following passage:

6Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8That 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. - Romans 9:6-8

Eric

Mograce2U
Jun 20th 2008, 06:34 PM
If there is an antitype today for Jacob wrestling with God to obtain a blessing from Him, then the Church is fulfilling that role today. While Israel is in the place of Esau who rejected his birthright and fathered the nation that became the enemy of God's people.

timmyb
Jun 20th 2008, 07:20 PM
If there is an antitype today for Jacob wrestling with God to obtain a blessing from Him, then the Church is fulfilling that role today. While Israel is in the place of Esau who rejected his birthright and fathered the nation that became the enemy of God's people.

but unlike Esau, Israel will repent before the end and will see the promise of the Lord come to pass... it's the Church's responsibility to God to pray for the peace of Jerusalem and for the Lord to establish Jerusalem as a praise in the earth. (Isaiah 62:6-7)

Isn't it kinda funny to any of you that Israel is the most controversial subject among the church today?

RabbiKnife
Jun 20th 2008, 07:25 PM
Mostly because of a bizarre misunderstanding of eschatology that pins of our hopes on a racist God.

timmyb
Jun 20th 2008, 07:47 PM
Mostly because of a bizarre misunderstanding of eschatology that pins of our hopes on a racist God.

it's been looked at it like that.... or how about the issue that God actually likes Israel and Israel was his sovereign choice and the promises made toward them have yet to be fulfilled and if he took them back that would make God deceitful and that would put even our salvation in jeporady... If God didn't keep his promises to Israel or took them back what makes you think you are secure in your salvation... God keeps his promises... and Romans 11:26 will happen before the end...

I think it's the fact that Israel bears little or no relevance to the Church.

Paul told us not to be arrogant toward Israel because our very salvation rests upon knowing the mystery of Israel and how God will deal with them and how God will bring them to their knees before they acknowledge Christ.

DeafPosttrib
Jun 20th 2008, 07:59 PM
Was Christ failed to make reconcile both Jews and Gentiles become one on Calvary? - Ephesians chapter 2.

Who is God's people of today?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

RabbiKnife
Jun 20th 2008, 08:16 PM
Was Christ failed to make reconcile both Jews and Gentiles become one on Calvary? - Ephesians chapter 2.

Who is God's people of today?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Now, now, let's not go getting the Bible involved in our discussion of theology!!!

Very good post..:cool:

Naphal
Jun 20th 2008, 09:41 PM
Paul said plainly "All Israel" will be saved, and I simply believe that, how God will accomplish this is beyond me, I just take the plain meaning of the text and believe it.

Not all Jews are of Israel. Most people interpret that to say "All Jews will be saved" but that's not the case.

wpm
Jun 20th 2008, 10:44 PM
it's been looked at it like that.... or how about the issue that God actually likes Israel and Israel was his sovereign choice and the promises made toward them have yet to be fulfilled and if he took them back that would make God deceitful and that would put even our salvation in jeporady... If God didn't keep his promises to Israel or took them back what makes you think you are secure in your salvation... God keeps his promises... and Romans 11:26 will happen before the end...



God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:29, Romans 2:11, Galatians 2:6, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 3:25, 1 Peter 1:17). The sinner (of all nationalities) enters exclusively into communion with God through regeneration and the new birth experience.

Paul

Mograce2U
Jun 21st 2008, 12:48 AM
but unlike Esau, Israel will repent before the end and will see the promise of the Lord come to pass... it's the Church's responsibility to God to pray for the peace of Jerusalem and for the Lord to establish Jerusalem as a praise in the earth. (Isaiah 62:6-7)

And the New Jerusalem is the city of that peace and reason for our praise. Praying for her inhabitants - ie. one another - is what we ought to be doing.


Isn't it kinda funny to any of you that Israel is the most controversial subject among the church today?No funnier than that the Church was the big controversy in Jesus' day. The difference being is that now the controversy is about the apostates being approved rather than the righteous in the sight of the Lord. go figure...

Edit: And it is worth pointing out that God has already shown who those He approves are.

BroRog
Jun 21st 2008, 03:02 AM
You misunderstood me. I was referring to the descendants of the nation of Israel.

Actually, I understood your point. Do you understand mine? People aren't descendants of a nation, whether it be Israel or another nation. I'm trying to get people to be more precise in the usage of certain terms like "Jew" and "Israelite" because each of these terms refers to a different aspect of being human.

It's very important for our discussion because Paul's argument in Romans 9 through 11 assumes this distinction. If you want to do a little experiment, do a word search on the terms "Jew" and "Israel" in the book of Romans. While the term "Jew" is found in almost every chapter, the term "Israel" is only found in three chapters. Paul spends eight chapters to make the point that salvation is by faith according to grace as it pertains to both Jew and Gentile. Beginning in chapter 9, he is changing the subject.


Hebrews 8:6-13 makes it clear that Jeremiah 31:31-34 has to do with the new covenant, which was established by the shed blood of Christ. You seem to think the covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 was made specifically for the nation of Israel. Why then are Gentile believers every bit as much covered by the blood of the new covenant as Jewish believers are?

Good question. Funny how it takes us 15 pages to get to the good stuff. To answer this we need to ask ourselves why salvation by faith was such a controversial subject in the first place. People who know the Old Testament already know that salvation is by faith. In fact, Paul cites the Old Testament many times in support of his views. His idea that salvation is by faith alone is not a new idea. Rather, the "mystery" if you will, was the fact that God was saving Gentiles without the prerequisite of becoming a citizen of Israel.

Here is one example from Colossians 1:25

I was made a minister according to the stewardship from God bestowed on me for your benefit, so that I might fully carry out the [preaching of] the word of God, 26 [that is], the mystery which has been hidden from the [past] ages and generations, but has now been manifested to His saints, to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

The point here is this. Gentile salvation wasn't easily understood from the OT scriptures. God's plan to save non-Israelites was hidden in God and the OT scriptures only hint at this in vague sayings. Jesus left it up to his apostles to reveal this aspect of God's salvation plans.

The Gentiles had no problem with God's salvation by faith according to Grace. It was the Pharisees who insisted that a Gentile must be circumcised and obey Moses in order to be saved. And so many of Paul's letters deal with the fact that God was saving Gentiles outside of being an Israelite (a circumcised, citizen of Israel, practicing Judaism.) Paul argues that God saved Abraham by faith even before he was circumcised. This proves that God is saving by faith outside of Israel's relationship to God.


The covenant was made for true Israel, not the nation of Israel.

When the mass conversion happens, both of these things will be true: the nation of Israel will BE true Israel.


God does not put His law into the minds and hearts of those who reject Christ. He puts His law into the minds and hearts of those who put their faith and trust in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile.

How do you know it's not the other way around? Consider whether it might be the case that he puts his law into our hearts and minds, which results in our wanting to put our faith and trust in Christ. :)


You are apparently not seeing that there is the nation of Israel, but there is also the Israel of God, which consists only of those who believe in His Son. God's covenant applies to the Israel of God, not the nation of Israel.

Yes, that is what I'm not seeing.


So, you believe God is a respecter of persons then, even though He is not. You think He will save Israel, not because they repent and put their faith in Christ, but just because they are the nation of Israel?

Of course they will repent. Haven't you read, "they will mourn for whom they pierced?" I'm saying He will save Israel, and they will repent and put faith in Christ. But he saves the entire nation of Israel, not because they are the nation of Israel, but rather, he does this in order to restore his name.

As he says, "Therefore say to the house of Israel, `Thus says the Lord God, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went."

Mograce2U
Jun 21st 2008, 03:36 AM
it's been looked at it like that.... or how about the issue that God actually likes Israel and Israel was his sovereign choice and the promises made toward them have yet to be fulfilled and if he took them back that would make God deceitful and that would put even our salvation in jeporady... If God didn't keep his promises to Israel or took them back what makes you think you are secure in your salvation... God keeps his promises... and Romans 11:26 will happen before the end...

I think it's the fact that Israel bears little or no relevance to the Church.

Paul told us not to be arrogant toward Israel because our very salvation rests upon knowing the mystery of Israel and how God will deal with them and how God will bring them to their knees before they acknowledge Christ.So what is this you think that God didn't send them a Savior because they rejected Jesus? Where is God obliged to keep covenant with people who break that covenant? Did He not bring them into the promised land just as He said? Did those who died in the wilderness because of their unbelief prevent Him from keeping the promise to their children? God did send His Son and saved the remnant and the others were cut off from the promise. He owes them nothing more. Now all who look to Jesus will be saved. What more would you have Him to do for them?