PDA

View Full Version : Who is a Jew or the nation Israel.



mdo757
Dec 16th 2008, 10:20 AM
Who is a Jew or the nation Israel.

This is what God has spoken through His prophets.


Genesis 17:3
Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4. "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.

Romans 4:13
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15. because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

Exodus 12:37
The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children. 38. Many other people went up with them, as well as large droves of livestock, both flocks and herds.

Leviticus 19:34
The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 24:22
You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.

Numbers 15:15
The community is to have the same rules for you and for the alien living among you; this is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You and the alien shall be the same before the LORD :

Joshua 8:33
All Israel, aliens and citizens alike, with their elders, officials and judges, were standing on both sides of the ark of the covenant of the LORD, facing those who carried it—the priests, who were Levites. Half of the people stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the LORD had formerly commanded when he gave instructions to bless the people of Israel.

Isaiah 14:1
The LORD will have compassion on Jacob; once again he will choose Israel and will settle them in their own land. Aliens will join them and unite with the house of Jacob.

Isaiah 44:5
One will say, 'I belong to the LORD '; another will call himself by the name of Jacob; still another will write on his hand, 'The LORD's,' and will take the name Israel.

Ezekiel 47
21. "You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22. You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the aliens who have settled among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23. In whatever tribe the alien settles, there you are to give him his inheritance," declares the Sovereign LORD.

Ephesians 2:19
Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household,...

Isaiah 56:3
Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the LORD say, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people."- 6. And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD to serve him, to love the name of the LORD, and to worship him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant-
7. these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations."
8. The Sovereign LORD declares— he who gathers the exiles of Israel: "I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered."

Romans 9:6
It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8. In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

1 Corinthians 14:21
In the Law it is written: "Through men of strange tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me," says the Lord.

Ephesians 2:12
remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Romans 2:28
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29. 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 3:29
Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Romans 9:24
even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,...

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

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

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

Acts 3:25
And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.'

Romans 8:17
Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Galatians 3:29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ephesians 3:6
This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.

Titus 3:7
so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

Isaiah 9:3
You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy; they rejoice before you as people rejoice at the harvest, as men rejoice when dividing the plunder.

Isaiah 26:15
You have enlarged the nation, O LORD; you have enlarged the nation. You have gained glory for yourself;
you have extended all the borders of the land.

Romans 10:19
Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation;...

Esther 8:17
In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.

Genesis 17:3
Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4. "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5. No longer will you be called Abram ; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you,...

Genesis 35:11
And God said to him, "I am God Almighty; be fruitful and increase in number. A nation and a community of nations will come from you, and kings will come from your body.

Psalm 2:4
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. 5. Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, 6. "I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill." 7. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD : He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father. 8. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.

Psalm 18:43
You have delivered me from the attacks of the people; you have made me the head of nations; people I did not know are subject to me.

Psalm 82:8
Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.

Psalm 111:6
He has shown his people the power of his works, giving them the lands of other nations.

Zechariah 2:10
"Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you," declares the LORD. 11. "Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you. 12. The LORD will inherit Judah as his portion in the holy land and will again choose Jerusalem. 13. Be still before the LORD, all mankind, because he has roused himself from his holy dwelling."

Matthew 12:21
In his name the nations will put their hope."

Romans 4:18
Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

Romans 9:8
In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

The Parable of the Tenants
Luke 20
9. He went on to tell the people this parable: "A man planted a vineyard, rented it to some farmers and went away for a long time. 10. At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants so they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11. He sent another servant, but that one also they beat and treated shamefully and sent away empty-handed. 12. He sent still a third, and they wounded him and threw him out.
13. "Then the owner of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my son, whom I love; perhaps they will respect him.' 14. "But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. 'This is the heir,' they said. 'Let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 15. So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. "What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16. He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others." When the people heard this, they said, "May this never be!" 17. Jesus looked directly at them and asked, "Then what is the meaning of that which is written:

" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone? 18. Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

19. The teachers of the law and the chief priests looked for a way to arrest him immediately, because they knew he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the people.

mdo757
Dec 16th 2008, 04:42 PM
There was a lot more scripture that I could have posted, but I thought these were best. Do you agree with this scripture? Is a Jew a convert to Judaism and the Hebrews a race of people? Before people were called Christians they were called converts to Judaism.:o

wpm
Dec 16th 2008, 05:43 PM
There was a lot more scripture that I could have posted, but I thought these were best. Do you agree with this scripture? Is a Jew a convert to Judaism and the Hebrews a race of people? Before people were called Christians they were called converts to Judaism.:o

Well done. Good study. :)

I thoroughly agree. We are saved by grace not by race.

mdo757
Dec 16th 2008, 08:12 PM
Well done. Good study. :)

I thoroughly agree. We are saved by grace not by race. From what I see in scripture a Jew is a convert to Judaism. The people who make up the nation are all different races of peoples, all converts to Judaism through Yahshua the Messiah.

wpm
Dec 16th 2008, 08:21 PM
From what I see in scripture a Jew is a convert to Judaism. The people who make up the nation are all different races of peoples, all converts to Judaism through Yahshua the Messiah.

They are a convert to Christ and become spiritually a Jew. To be a natural Jew would mean physical circumcision, what is needed to become a spiritual Jew is spiritual circumcision.

mdo757
Dec 16th 2008, 10:49 PM
They are a convert to Christ and become spiritually a Jew. To be a natural Jew would mean physical circumcision, what is needed to become a spiritual Jew is spiritual circumcision. Basically you are correct. But also a person can conclude that the Hebrews are a race of people, and a Jew is a convert to Judaism. Such as a Judaeo Christian would be a Jew under the New Covenant. Being a Jew has nothing to do with a race of people according to scripture. I also found out in my studies that the word Goyim is not always translated correctly. Originally the word meant "people-s," (always) but now days it is also is used to mean "nation-s." In scripture God did not count the Hebrews and other peoples that did not take part in worshipping Him.

mfowler12
Dec 18th 2008, 03:06 PM
Who, then, are gentiles?

mdo757
Dec 18th 2008, 05:35 PM
Who, then, are gentiles? The word Gentile is used to describe other peoples and nations who are not of the religion of Judaism. In other words, Pagans. All who are of a different belief, or join other religious beliefs to Judaism are Pagans. I guess you could say that truth is narrowly defined, and not broad and all encompassing.

Raybob
Dec 18th 2008, 06:43 PM
There was a lot more scripture that I could have posted, but I thought these were best. Do you agree with this scripture? Is a Jew a convert to Judaism and the Hebrews a race of people? Before people were called Christians they were called converts to Judaism.:o

I don't understand your statement "Before people were called Christians they were called converts to Judaism." Saul was heavy into Judaism until he became a Christian. Then as Paul, he converted from Judaism to Christian. Before Christ, God's people were the men of faith in the Lord. After Christ, God's people are still the men of faith in the Lord.

The scripture you quoted from Romans says it best:
Romans 4:13
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15. because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

Jesus is Lord and was Lord before the foundation of the world. Men of faith in the Lord are God's people. Before Christ, it was limited to descendants of Israel to be called one of God's people. After the cross, any nationality can become one of God's people. As you quoted:

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,...

Raybob

mdo757
Dec 18th 2008, 07:51 PM
I don't understand your statement "Before people were called Christians they were called converts to Judaism." Saul was heavy into Judaism until he became a Christian. Then as Paul, he converted from Judaism to Christian. Before Christ, God's people were the men of faith in the Lord. After Christ, God's people are still the men of faith in the Lord.

The scripture you quoted from Romans says it best:
Romans 4:13
It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14. For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15. because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16. Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17. As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.

Jesus is Lord and was Lord before the foundation of the world. Men of faith in the Lord are God's people. Before Christ, it was limited to descendants of Israel to be called one of God's people. After the cross, any nationality can become one of God's people. As you quoted:

Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,...

Raybob
I am a Judaeo Christian.


Acts 2:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&verse=11&version=31&context=verse)
(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&verse=10&end_verse=12&version=31&context=context)
Acts 6:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=6&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=6&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context)
Acts 13:43 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=13&verse=43&version=31&context=verse)
When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 11:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=11&verse=26&version=31&context=verse)
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Raybob
Dec 18th 2008, 08:50 PM
I am a Judaeo Christian.


Acts 2:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&verse=11&version=31&context=verse)
(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!"

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&verse=10&end_verse=12&version=31&context=context)
Acts 6:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=6&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=6&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context)
Acts 13:43 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=13&verse=43&version=31&context=verse)
When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

Acts 11:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=11&verse=26&version=31&context=verse)
and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

What translation are you using?? Those aren't found in the KJV nor are they in the original Greek text. What your bible calls converts to Judaism, the KJV calls religious proselytes.

Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.


Raybob

mdo757
Dec 18th 2008, 09:21 PM
What translation are you using?? Those aren't found in the KJV nor are they in the original Greek text. What your bible calls converts to Judaism, the KJV calls religious proselytes.

Act 13:43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.


Raybob I'm quoting the NIV. Basically proselyte and convert are the same thing. You need to keep in mind that it wasn't until years later the disciples were first called Christians. Before then they were called the "Way" and a sect of Judaism.


Luke 5:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=5&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=5&verse=29&end_verse=31&version=31&context=context)
Acts 24:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context)
Acts 24:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=14&version=31&context=verse)
However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=31&context=context)
Acts 26:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=26&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=26&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context)
Acts 28:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=28&verse=22&version=31&context=verse)
But we want to hear what your views are, for we know that people everywhere are talking against this sect."

Nihil Obstat
Dec 18th 2008, 09:36 PM
Actually, Jews who believed in Jesus weren't a sect of Judiasm - they were the fulfillment of Judaism. Those who persecuted the Christians called them a sect in order that Rome would put them to death, for it was unlawful to begin new religions, though Judaism was legal since it was an already established religion. Many (including myself) believe that one of the main reasons that Luke wrote Acts was to prove that Christianity was not a sect, but was the promised fulfillment of Judaism.

Great posts! - Astro

RevLogos
Dec 18th 2008, 10:16 PM
Good post.

Paul says several times, often with nearly the same sentence, that flesh and blood are irrelevant to God. Being Jew or Gentile is irrelevant.

1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

Col 2:11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Gal 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
Gal 6:16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

This last one requires some thought. Who is “the Israel of God”?

We are. Paul is using Israel to mean all those who are saved. Those who glorify the risen son.

So far this topic could be in any of the forums. Let’s give it an ETC flair:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
Rom 11:27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Again, what is Israel? Does this verse literally mean the Jews will be saved at the end? Given all the other verses where Paul tells us being a Jew or Gentile is not important, I would say no, that is not what this is saying. It means all of those who are with Christ will be saved. Christians are the Israel of God.

mdo757
Dec 18th 2008, 11:21 PM
Actually, Jews who believed in Jesus weren't a sect of Judiasm - they were the fulfillment of Judaism. Those who persecuted the Christians called them a sect in order that Rome would put them to death, for it was unlawful to begin new religions, though Judaism was legal since it was an already established religion. Many (including myself) believe that one of the main reasons that Luke wrote Acts was to prove that Christianity was not a sect, but was the promised fulfillment of Judaism.

Great posts! - Astro You are mistaken, they were a fulfillment of prophecy, not Judaism. Look this scripture over again. Christianity is the fulfillment of prophecy.


Luke 5:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=5&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=5&verse=29&end_verse=31&version=31&context=context)
Acts 24:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context)
Acts 24:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=14&version=31&context=verse)
However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=31&context=context)
Acts 26:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=26&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.

Nihil Obstat
Dec 18th 2008, 11:30 PM
You are mistaken, they were a fulfillment of prophecy, not Judaism. Look this scripture over again. Christianity is the fulfillment of prophecy.


Luke 5:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=5&verse=30&version=31&context=verse)
But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=5&verse=29&end_verse=31&version=31&context=context)
Acts 24:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
"We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context)
Acts 24:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=14&version=31&context=verse)
However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets,

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=24&verse=13&end_verse=15&version=31&context=context)
Acts 26:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=26&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.



No, I am not mistaken, but I'm not going to press this either. Bless you!

mdo757
Dec 18th 2008, 11:34 PM
Good post.

Paul says several times, often with nearly the same sentence, that flesh and blood are irrelevant to God. Being Jew or Gentile is irrelevant.

1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing and
uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

Col 2:11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
Col 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Gal 6:15 Neither circumcision nor
uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
Gal 6:16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God.

This last one requires some thought. Who is “the Israel of God”?

We are. Paul is using Israel to mean all those who are saved. Those who glorify the risen son.

So far this topic could be in any of the forums. Let’s give it an ETC flair:

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
Rom 11:27 And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Again, what is Israel? Does this verse literally mean the Jews will be saved at the end? Given all the other verses where Paul tells us being a Jew or Gentile is not important, I would say no, that is not what this is saying. It means all of those who are with Christ will be saved. Christians are the Israel of God. The people did not always call themselves Hebrews, but Jews. Even to this day people say Jews in place of Hebrews. A Hebrew may or may not be a Jew. A Jew is a convert to Judaism. Israel is the true believers who serve Yahwah. Naturally that will be those who keep the commandments and the testimony of Yahshua.

mdo757
Dec 18th 2008, 11:38 PM
No, I am not mistaken, but I'm not going to press this either. Bless you! I backed up what I believe with scripture. You are welcomed to use scripture to prove me wrong. If not, well then have a nice day, and thank you for sharing with us.

Nihil Obstat
Dec 18th 2008, 11:46 PM
...they were a fulfillment of prophecy, not Judaism.

Would you explain what you mean by this?

mdo757
Dec 19th 2008, 12:00 AM
Would you explain what you mean by this? Christians are the fulfillment of prophecy.
Isaiah 62

Zion's New Name

1 For Zion's sake I will not keep silent,
for Jerusalem's sake I will not remain quiet,
till her righteousness shines out like the dawn,
her salvation like a blazing torch. 2 The nations will see your righteousness,
and all kings your glory;
you will be called by a new name
that the mouth of the LORD will bestow.

Nihil Obstat
Dec 19th 2008, 12:03 AM
I backed up what I believe with scripture.

I'm not sure how the Scriptures you presented actually proved anything at all... Judaism had sects, but Christianity wasn't one of them. Christ fulfilled the law, and for us to fulfill the law as we ought, we need to be in Christ. Therefore, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Paul is not agreeing that Christianity is a sect in Acts 24:14, but is denying the Jews' accusations against him.

- Astro

Nihil Obstat
Dec 19th 2008, 12:04 AM
Christians are the fulfillment of prophecy.
Isaiah 62

Zion's New Name

1 For Zion's sake I will not keep silent,
for Jerusalem's sake I will not remain quiet,
till her righteousness shines out like the dawn,
her salvation like a blazing torch. 2 The nations will see your righteousness,
and all kings your glory;
you will be called by a new name
that the mouth of the LORD will bestow.

Are you serious?

mdo757
Dec 19th 2008, 12:08 AM
Are you serious? Well to be more exact, Yahshua fulfilled the prophecies, and we are what came after.

Nihil Obstat
Dec 19th 2008, 01:28 AM
The new name given to Zion (a mountain in Israel, not the people of Israel) is not "Christians", but rather the text explains itself when let: Jerusalem, when it is called Forsaken and Desolate, will by the Lord's doing be called Hephzibah ("My delight is in her") and Beulah ("married [to the Israelites - v.5; in other words, her people will never be carried away from her again]"). I think you need to explain what you mean one more time...

- Astro

mdo757
Dec 19th 2008, 03:25 AM
The new name given to Zion (a mountain in Israel, not the people of Israel) is not "Christians", but rather the text explains itself when let: Jerusalem, when it is called Forsaken and Desolate, will by the Lord's doing be called Hephzibah ("My delight is in her") and Beulah ("married [to the Israelites - v.5; in other words, her people will never be carried away from her again]"). I think you need to explain what you mean one more time...

- Astro Let the scripture here explain: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Zion&version1=31&searchtype=all

mdo757
Dec 19th 2008, 03:27 AM
I tried to post the scripture earlier, but it was a can of worms.:B

Nihil Obstat
Dec 19th 2008, 02:50 PM
Let the scripture here explain: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Zion&version1=31&searchtype=all

I don't see how it matters if it's a city or a mountain in Isa. 62 - the point I'm standing on is that this has nothing to do with what you're saying it does. I need you to explain your thoughts on the Scripture you present, because I have no idea how you're coming to your conclusion. Giving a list of Scriptures does us no good, as seen earlier - at first wpm "thoroughly" agreed with you, but when he heard your thoughts on those Scriptures, suddenly he backed out. So when I say explain yourself, that's what I mean: YOU need to give an EXPLANATION of the Scriptures being discussed. It's how this medium works.

- Astro

Emanate
Dec 19th 2008, 08:53 PM
Actually, Jews who believed in Jesus weren't a sect of Judiasm - they were the fulfillment of Judaism. Those who persecuted the Christians called them a sect in order that Rome would put them to death, for it was unlawful to begin new religions, though Judaism was legal since it was an already established religion. Many (including myself) believe that one of the main reasons that Luke wrote Acts was to prove that Christianity was not a sect, but was the promised fulfillment of Judaism.

Great posts! - Astro


one man made religion is the fulfillment of another?

timmyb
Dec 19th 2008, 09:19 PM
I believe that God does have an interest in the nation of Israel, that they are still God's chosen people and that Gentiles who have been saved are grafted in to that promise that was given to Israel in the person of Christ... there are some serious end time prophecies that refer to Israel that have yet to be fulfilled... God isn't done with the Jewish people or the nation of Israel

Nihil Obstat
Dec 19th 2008, 09:55 PM
one man made religion is the fulfillment of another?

Erm... what...?

Emanate
Dec 19th 2008, 10:09 PM
Erm... what...?

Judaism is a religion. How could anything fulfill something that is a construct of man?

Nihil Obstat
Dec 19th 2008, 10:21 PM
Judaism is a religion. How could anything fulfill something that is a construct of man?

Where do you get that Judaism was created by man (have you read the first five books of the OT)?

Where do you get that Christianity was created by man (have you read the first five books of the NT)?

JesusisGod
Dec 19th 2008, 10:38 PM
Hi mdo757.
I haven't read all the posts in this discussion, but I think its possible that "Jews" or the "nation of Israel" will be people who believed in Messiah, regardless of race and lived the right way as closely as possible. I think the "gentiles" will be people who believed in Jesus but didn't attain a certain standard required by God. What think ye?

Raybob
Dec 19th 2008, 10:39 PM
Where do you get that Judaism was created by man (have you read the first five books of the OT)?

Where do you get that Christianity was created by man (have you read the first five books of the NT)?

Judaism came into existence from the Pharisees and scribes coming from the tribe of Judah long after they split apart from Israel . The first 5 books of the OT spoke of Israel. They rested in their homes on the Sabbath, not attending "religious services". The "religious services" came about from the Pharisees.

Christian religious services (extension of Pharisaical traditions) were invented by the RCC and kept by traditions with the protestants.

Lev 23:3 Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings.

Deu 5:14 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou.


Raybob

Nihil Obstat
Dec 19th 2008, 10:45 PM
Perhaps this is just semantics, but Judaism is what Jews do, and Christianity is what Christians do, and what Jews and Christians were to do was "created" by God and not man - the Pharisees and the early RCC perverted what God made holy.

Raybob
Dec 19th 2008, 10:54 PM
Perhaps this is just semantics, but Judaism is what Jews do, and Christianity is what Christians do, and what Jews and Christians were to do was "created" by God and not man - the Pharisees and the early RCC perverted what God made holy.

If that were true, then what am I supposed to do? By my grandparents lineage, I'm Jewish but I believe that Jesus is Lord and is now seated on the throne of David.

Raybob

Nihil Obstat
Dec 19th 2008, 11:23 PM
If that were true, then what am I supposed to do? By my grandparents lineage, I'm Jewish but I believe that Jesus is Lord and is now seated on the throne of David.

Raybob

A true Jew believes that Jesus is Lord - that's what I'm saying (and Gentiles who believe the same become fellow citizens with the true Jews). It's the one new man reality that I'm speaking of when I say that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. There's no contradiction in being a Christian Jew (though before God it may be redundant). If you're interested and have the time, you can read my thoughts on all this here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=141542&highlight=true+Jew), and here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=139327&highlight=true+Jew).

Raybob
Dec 19th 2008, 11:31 PM
A true Jew believes that Jesus is Lord - that's what I'm saying (and Gentiles who believe the same become fellow citizens with the true Jews). It's the one new man reality that I'm speaking of when I say that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. There's no contradiction in being a Christian Jew (though before God it may be redundant). If you're interested and have the time, you can read my thoughts on all this here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=141542&highlight=true+Jew), and here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=139327&highlight=true+Jew).

Boy, my grandfather would have disagreed with you. He believed himself to be a true Jew and even attended Hebrew Union College studying to be a rabbi. ;)

RevLogos
Dec 20th 2008, 12:30 AM
I believe that God does have an interest in the nation of Israel, that they are still God's chosen people and that Gentiles who have been saved are grafted in to that promise that was given to Israel in the person of Christ... there are some serious end time prophecies that refer to Israel that have yet to be fulfilled... God isn't done with the Jewish people or the nation of Israel

They are going to have to accept Jesus as the Messiah, or they're going to go down with the Muslims and everyone else not in the Book when Jesus comes. Some people think, because of Rom 11:26, that the Jews will see the light before Jesus comes. If that's true we would see a great rise in Messianic Judaism before the end. I'll be looking for this, and I pray for it, but I tend to think that WE and all those who accept and glorify Jesus as their savior, are what is meant by the new "Israel of God" as Paul writes.

Nations have a border drawn by men. God has a border drawn by faith. God's border is the only border of any real significance.

quiet dove
Dec 20th 2008, 12:43 AM
Hi mdo757.
I haven't read all the posts in this discussion, but I think its possible that "Jews" or the "nation of Israel" will be people who believed in Messiah, regardless of race and lived the right way as closely as possible. I think the "gentiles" will be people who believed in Jesus but didn't attain a certain standard required by God. What think ye?

This is an interesting concept but since there is only one name under heaven in which any man, Jew or Gentile can be saved. And since all men, Jew or Gentile are separated by God because of sin. It is not a matter of Jews or Gentiles living more right, it is a matter of faith in the Redeemer.

Now I believe God still has plans for a nation of Israel, but that does not mean different plans for salavtion. Nor does it mean that Jew or Gentile is better or worse, just to say that God has His purpose for all men ever born, but He provided only one way of salvation for all of them, regardless of Jew or Gentile and regardless of His purpose for them.

JesusisGod
Dec 20th 2008, 02:13 AM
Hi quiet dove.

there is only one name under heaven in which any man, Jew or Gentile can be saved.
Yes, that's true.

all men, Jew or Gentile are separated by God because of sin.
Again, we agree.

It is not a matter of Jews or Gentiles living more right, it is a matter of faith in the Redeemer.

It is not a matter of "living more right" where salvation is concerned, but living more right might be a matter of where your position in eternity is. It is possible that how we have lived in Christ in this life will determine what our standing is in the afterlife.

quiet dove
Dec 20th 2008, 02:44 AM
It is not a matter of "living more right" where salvation is concerned, but living more right might be a matter of where your position in eternity is. It is possible that how we have lived in Christ in this life will determine what our standing is in the afterlife.

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts because I misunderstood what you were saying. :)

Emanate
Dec 20th 2008, 03:16 AM
Where do you get that Judaism was created by man (have you read the first five books of the OT)?

Where do you get that Christianity was created by man (have you read the first five books of the NT)?


1. Yes. Will you show me the place where it was given to only the tribe of Judah?

2. Yes, can you show me the place where Messiah came to contradict the words of YHWH?

Emanate
Dec 20th 2008, 03:18 AM
. If that's true we would see a great rise in Messianic Judaism before the end. I'll be looking for this, and I pray for it, but I tend to think that WE and all those who accept and glorify Jesus as their savior, are what is meant by the new "Israel of God" as Paul writes.


It has grown by over 600% in the last 10 years

Nihil Obstat
Dec 20th 2008, 04:47 AM
1. Yes. Will you show me the place where it was given to only the tribe of Judah?

2. Yes, can you show me the place where Messiah came to contradict the words of YHWH?

I have no idea what you're talking about. It's called "Judaism" because after Assyria carried away the northern tribes (which constituted the kingdom of Israel), all that remained was the southern tribes (called, the kingdom of Judah). Those from the northern kingdom who heeded the words of the prophets and left early assimilated into Judah. Then after Babylon overtook Judah, the remnant of the Hebrew children were called "Jews". This is where the word "Judaism" stemmed from, I believe. Is that what you're asking?

As for your second point, I am at a total loss as to what you mean. Jesus IS Yahweh. When did I insinuate that Jesus changed anything? My point is that He DIDN'T change anything, and that therefore Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. I think there's some mis-communication going on...

- Astro

mdo757
Dec 20th 2008, 05:41 AM
Hi mdo757.
I haven't read all the posts in this discussion, but I think its possible that "Jews" or the "nation of Israel" will be people who believed in Messiah, regardless of race and lived the right way as closely as possible. I think the "gentiles" will be people who believed in Jesus but didn't attain a certain standard required by God. What think ye? God called the Hebrews and the other peoples who came out of Egypt with Moses, Jews. And so a Jew is a convert to Judaism, and the Hebrews are a race of people. We are a grafted "Branch" into Judaism.

mdo757
Dec 20th 2008, 05:51 AM
If that were true, then what am I supposed to do? By my grandparents lineage, I'm Jewish but I believe that Jesus is Lord and is now seated on the throne of David.

Raybob That would make you a Hebrew who is a Christian. And if you keep the commandments of God, then that makes you a Hebrew who is a Judaeo Christian. Judaeo is a modern term for Judaizing. Through out history the Judaizing Christians keep the commandment, and Yahwah's sabbath as a sign, along with the testimony of Yahshua.

Raybob
Dec 20th 2008, 08:19 AM
That would make you a Hebrew who is a Christian. And if you keep the commandments of God, then that makes you a Hebrew who is a Judaeo Christian. Judaeo is a modern term for Judaizing. Through out history the Judaizing Christians keep the commandment, and Yahwah's sabbath as a sign, along with the testimony of Yahshua.

I do keep both of God's commandments. Jesus IS God.

Mat 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Raybob

mdo757
Dec 20th 2008, 03:27 PM
I do keep both of God's commandments. Jesus IS God.

Mat 22:37-40 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Raybob What do you think about this verse?
Matthew 5:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=19&version=31&context=verse)
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

mdo757
Dec 20th 2008, 03:49 PM
Isaiah 11:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=11&verse=1&version=31&context=verse)
[ The Branch From Jesse ] A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.

Jeremiah 23:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=23&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=30&chapter=23&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context)

Zechariah 3:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=45&chapter=3&verse=8&version=31&context=verse)
" 'Listen, O high priest Joshua and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch.Zechariah 6:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=45&chapter=6&verse=12&version=31&context=verse)
Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD.

John 15:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=1&version=31&context=verse)
[ The Vine and the Branches ] "I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=31&context=context)
John 15:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=2&version=31&context=verse)
He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=1&end_verse=3&version=31&context=context)
John 15:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=4&version=31&context=verse)
Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=3&end_verse=5&version=31&context=context)
John 15:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=5&version=31&context=verse)
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context)
John 15:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=6&version=31&context=verse)
If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=15&verse=5&end_verse=7&version=31&context=context)
Romans 11:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=11&version=31&context=verse)
[ Ingrafted Branches ] Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=10&end_verse=12&version=31&context=context)
Romans 11:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=16&version=31&context=verse)
If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=15&end_verse=17&version=31&context=context)
Romans 11:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=17&version=31&context=verse)
If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root,

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=16&end_verse=18&version=31&context=context)
Romans 11:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=18&version=31&context=verse)
do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=17&end_verse=19&version=31&context=context)
Romans 11:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=19&version=31&context=verse)
You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in."

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=18&end_verse=20&version=31&context=context)
Romans 11:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=21&version=31&context=verse)
For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=20&end_verse=22&version=31&context=context)
Romans 11:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=24&version=31&context=verse)
After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=23&end_verse=25&version=31&context=context)

mdo757
Dec 20th 2008, 03:54 PM
I keep having trouble with my message board tools working correctly. Is there something I need to know, or do I have to just put up with it?

Raybob
Dec 20th 2008, 05:06 PM
What do you think about this verse?
Matthew 5:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=5&verse=19&version=31&context=verse)
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I think:
(40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Raybob

RevLogos
Dec 20th 2008, 05:10 PM
I keep having trouble with my message board tools working correctly. Is there something I need to know, or do I have to just put up with it?

What problem are you having?

If I ever post something more than a few sentences I usually compose it in Word first, then paste it in, do a preview to check the formatting (where I have some problems) then go back in and tweak the formatting if I need to.

mdo757
Dec 20th 2008, 07:26 PM
What problem are you having?

If I ever post something more than a few sentences I usually compose it in Word first, then paste it in, do a preview to check the formatting (where I have some problems) then go back in and tweak the formatting if I need to. Reformatting is the problem. If I format in word, then reformat, then post here that works OK. Providing I do not have to format again. The malfunction is in the order list and unorder list.

ATF
Dec 25th 2008, 12:37 PM
Well stated. When Paul asked had God cast away his people, he used himself as an example that he was a part of God's remnant by being converted to Christianity.

ATF

(http://allthingsfulfilled.com)

Philip dT
Jan 19th 2009, 11:31 AM
Are there any New Testament grounds that one can say that a group of people can be called "God's people" other than through faith in Jesus Christ?

pinky
Jan 20th 2009, 02:59 AM
Who is a Jew or the nation Israel.

This is what God has spoken through His prophets..........




This is a good post. Thank you for taking the time to share that with us.

We are in agreement with the premise that the nation of Israel was not a 'race'. We can also see many examples where the descendants of Abraham 'mixed' with other peoples, tribes, races.....so Israel was not a racially homogenous group. They were a nation........ but a nation is not a race.


There is some difficulty with the way the term Judaism is used however. I think I can see where you are coming from with the use of this term, but please consider this for a moment....

'Judaism' is not really the religion/faith that the OT saints followed. Some think a more accurate term of the true OT faith would be 'Hebrewism' in it's context or the faith of Abraham, because the definition of Judaism as it applies today is 'pharisaism', ie the religion of the pharisees.

Modern Judaism descends directly from the pharisees. This is a fact.

I think you would agree that Jesus made it pretty clear that the religion the pharisees followed was not the True OT faith. In fact He had some pretty strong words in condemnation of it.

So, 'technically'....... to say that Christians are grafted into Judaism would mean that we were grafted into the pharisee religion. Or to say that our roots are in Judaism, would mean our roots are in the the pharisee religion.

Does that make sense?

I percieve that the tree we have been grafted into could accurately be called the 'house' of Israel.....which is the house of the Messiah Jesus, as He is even called Israel in the OT. The root of the tree is Jesus. He is the rock, foundation, cornerstone upon which this house is built. It is a spiritual house that is built on faith and grace......not race.

The OT saints looked faithfully forward to His coming.......we look back in faith and recognize that He has come.

I percieve that 'house' of the pharisees that Jesus said was desolate (Mat 23:38, Luk 13:35) is Judaism, the synagogue, temple worship et al.

Take care and God bless,
pinky

quiet dove
Jan 20th 2009, 03:10 AM
This is a good post. Thank you for taking the time to share that with us.

We are in agreement with the premise that the nation of Israel was not a 'race'. We can also see many examples where the descendants of Abraham 'mixed' with other peoples, tribes, races.....so Israel was not a racially homogenous group. They were a nation........ but a nation is not a race.

Take care and God bless,
pinky

I disagree, Israel is a race and a nation. descendents of Jacob are the race of Israel and those descendants then are also a nation. Other peoples/races joining in with them did not make them cease to be a nation of a certain race of people.

pinky
Jan 20th 2009, 04:17 AM
I disagree, Israel is a race and a nation. descendents of Jacob are the race of Israel and those descendants then are also a nation. Other peoples/races joining in with them did not make them cease to be a nation of a certain race of people.


Hi Quiet dove.


Just some things to think about.....

What race was Abraham being that he was from Ur?

Jacob's mother Rebekah was a Syrian (Gen 28:5) so what race would that make Jacob?

Given that Sarah was the daughter of Rebekah's brother Laban, she too would have been Syrian, so what race would Jacob and Sarah's children be?

What race is Esau, twin brother of Jacob, father of the Edomites?

Jacob also concieved children with Bilhah and Zilpah the servants, what race were they?

Joseph took an Eqyptian for a wife, so what race are their children?

Then there is Judah and Tamar the Caananite.

Moses and Zipporah who was a Midianite.

.

Then many other verses throughout the OT that demonstrate the nation of Israel was not a racially homogenous group.



There is really only one race anyhow, and that is the human race....

Act 17:26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=17&v=26&t=KJV#26)And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;


Take care and God bless,
pinky

BroRog
Jan 20th 2009, 05:57 AM
I disagree, Israel is a race and a nation. descendents of Jacob are the race of Israel and those descendants then are also a nation. Other peoples/races joining in with them did not make them cease to be a nation of a certain race of people.

I agree with you.

quiet dove
Jan 20th 2009, 07:49 PM
Hi Quiet dove.


Just some things to think about.....

What race was Abraham being that he was from Ur?

Jacob's mother Rebekah was a Syrian (Gen 28:5) so what race would that make Jacob?

Given that Sarah was the daughter of Rebekah's brother Laban, she too would have been Syrian, so what race would Jacob and Sarah's children be?

What race is Esau, twin brother of Jacob, father of the Edomites?

Jacob also concieved children with Bilhah and Zilpah the servants, what race were they?

Joseph took an Eqyptian for a wife, so what race are their children?

Then there is Judah and Tamar the Caananite.

Moses and Zipporah who was a Midianite.

.

Then many other verses throughout the OT that demonstrate the nation of Israel was not a racially homogenous group.



There is really only one race anyhow, and that is the human race....

Act 17:26 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=17&v=26&t=KJV#26)And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;


Take care and God bless,
pinky

Jacobs name was changed to Israel and God said Jacob that he would inherit the promises of his fathers, Abraham and Isaac. Thats makes Abraham and Isaac no less chosen to begin the race of people, a nation consisting of a race of people to be His witnesses.

God chose a line of men to bring up a race and nation of people to be His witness. There is two things going on here. Esau can have the same blood, but Esau did not inherit the promises of Abraham and Isaac, Jacob did.

Descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob inherited the promises of their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to become the nation chosen/created by God to he His witness, they were separated out from among all other peoples, including their brothers.

So among the blood only certain ones were considered Israel because the promises were passed down through certain ones and not through others.

T W Taylor
Jan 20th 2009, 08:03 PM
I have to agree with quiet dove, it is the descedants- not pure race that make the nation of Israel, (the Jews or Judah) and the descendants of the other brothers of Judah, the sons of Israel, that make the nations of Israel. One test that seems to work, is they are called by the Hebrew word for man on the end of there name, like for Judah, Jew-ish (Jew-man) Brit-ish, (Covenant-man)

pinky
Jan 20th 2009, 09:18 PM
Jacobs name was changed to Israel and God said Jacob that he would inherit the promises of his fathers, Abraham and Isaac. Thats makes Abraham and Isaac no less chosen to begin the race of people, a nation consisting of a race of people to be His witnesses.

God chose a line of men to bring up a race and nation of people to be His witness. There is two things going on here. Esau can have the same blood, but Esau did not inherit the promises of Abraham and Isaac, Jacob did.

Descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob inherited the promises of their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to become the nation chosen/created by God to he His witness, they were separated out from among all other peoples, including their brothers.

So among the blood only certain ones were considered Israel because the promises were passed down through certain ones and not through others.

Thank you for your response Quiet Dove.

It seems that what you say here actually supports the point I am trying to make.

Some who were of the same racial make-up were chosen and some not.

Abraham, Issac and Jacob were chosen because of their faith, not their race.

This faith was passed down to their descendants, who were a mixture of races (so called).

Some of their descendants followed this faith.....some didn't.




However........ I think the REAL point here is that now that Christ has died for our sins, what importance does race have?

Rom 10:12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=10&v=12&t=KJV#12)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.



1Ti 1:4 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Ti&c=1&v=4&t=KJV#4)Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.


http://www.blueletterbible.org/gifs/copyChkboxOff.gifTts 3:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Tts&c=3&v=9&t=KJV#9)But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.


May the Lord bless you richly in Christ,
pinky

timmyb
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:29 AM
I would clearly identify Israel as Paul identified them in Romans 9:1-3... they were his countrymen according to the flesh... who were Israelites who were committed the adoption, the covenants, the giving of the law and Christ.

Israel and Jews are the same thing... they are a covenant people that will accept Jesus before the end... they are in a bad place if you ask me... they won't covenant with God on his terms, but God has covenanted with them and because of that he will put them through near hell on earth aka Jacob's Trouble for them to agree with God and covenant with him on his terms aka accepting Jesus as their Savior, King, and Promised Messiah

Raybob
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:57 AM
...Israel and Jews are the same thing... they are a covenant people that will accept Jesus before the end... they are in a bad place if you ask me... they won't covenant with God on his terms, but God has covenanted with them and because of that he will put them through near hell on earth aka Jacob's Trouble for them to agree with God and covenant with him on his terms aka accepting Jesus as their Savior, King, and Promised Messiah

Timmy,
I wish that were true, at least for my many (Jewish) relatives that don't know Jesus. I wish I could find that in the bible without having to 'interpret' it to find it. I know the promised new covenant came at the cross.

As for Israel=Jews, that would be incorrect. Jews are from the tribe of Judah, according to the OT. Judah was only one of the twelve tribes of Israel, according to the OT. Throughout the bible, "Israel" generally refers to "God's people" of which gentiles have been grafted into the vine.

Raybob

timmyb
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:00 AM
Timmy,
I wish that were true, at least for my many (Jewish) relatives that don't know Jesus. I wish I could find that in the bible without having to 'interpret' it to find it. I know the promised new covenant came at the cross.

As for Israel=Jews, that would be incorrect. Jews are from the tribe of Judah, according to the OT. Judah was only one of the twelve tribes of Israel, according to the OT. Throughout the bible, "Israel" generally refers to "God's people" of which gentiles have been grafted into the vine.

Raybob

if you could find scripture that says that... I've provided scripture that clearly states by Paul the Apostle that identifies Israel plain and clear in Romans 9:1-3 that Israel are Jews according to the flesh

SunnyE
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:01 AM
Don't forget Galatians 3, 29

It is not by the FLESH but Faith in Christ that gives anyone
a connection to Abraham and all of God's promises. No one
is actually a Jew until they have faith in Christ. Yes, at some
point God will lift the veil from those of the flesh and give
them an opportunity to repent.

Raybob
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:03 AM
if you could find scripture that says that... I've provided scripture that clearly states by Paul the Apostle that identifies Israel plain and clear in Romans 9:1-3 that Israel are Jews according to the flesh

What I want to find in scripture is what you said about unsaved Jews " they are a covenant people that will accept Jesus before the end."

As for Romans 9:1-3, it doesn't mention Israel or Jews.

Rom 9:1-3 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, (2) That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. (3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:


Raybob

timmyb
Jan 22nd 2009, 05:47 PM
What I want to find in scripture is what you said about unsaved Jews " they are a covenant people that will accept Jesus before the end."

As for Romans 9:1-3, it doesn't mention Israel or Jews.

Rom 9:1-3 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, (2) That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. (3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:


Raybob

then go to verse 4... who are Israelites

Teke
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:10 PM
then go to verse 4... who are Israelites
Hi Timmy,:)
And read on to verse 5 also then Timmy.

See God is faithful to all Israel, indeed to mankind. In this section of Romans Paul presents a description of a two fold Israel. One spiritual, one physical. But the issue is, who is a true child of Abraham (v7)?

Not a natural or biological offspring of Abraham, for if this were the case the children of Hagar (Gen. 16:4,15) and of Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4) would be Israelites. Pinky has already pointed this difference out, which I agree with.

Further, not all those in Isaac's line are Israelites (otherwise Esau and Edomites would be) but only those who are "in Isaac" (v7) - in other words, faithful believers. Being a child of God has never been based on race or family.

"Children of the promise", that is, those in Isaac, or faithful believers , are the true children of Abraham (see Galatians 4:28). For Isaac was concieved by "the word of promise" (Rom. 9:9), not just by natural procreative powers of his elderly parents..

Philip dT
Jan 22nd 2009, 06:20 PM
And then on to verse 6:

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


And who are the "children of the promise"? Paul defined this earlier:

Rom 4:11-16 "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: (12) And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. (13) For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. (14) For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: (15) Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. (16) Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,"

BroRog
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:34 PM
Hi Timmy,:)
And read on to verse 5 also then Timmy.

See God is faithful to all Israel, indeed to mankind. In this section of Romans Paul presents a description of a two fold Israel. One spiritual, one physical. But the issue is, who is a true child of Abraham (v7)?

Not a natural or biological offspring of Abraham, for if this were the case the children of Hagar (Gen. 16:4,15) and of Keturah (Gen. 25:1-4) would be Israelites. Pinky has already pointed this difference out, which I agree with.

Further, not all those in Isaac's line are Israelites (otherwise Esau and Edomites would be) but only those who are "in Isaac" (v7) - in other words, faithful believers. Being a child of God has never been based on race or family.

"Children of the promise", that is, those in Isaac, or faithful believers , are the true children of Abraham (see Galatians 4:28). For Isaac was concieved by "the word of promise" (Rom. 9:9), not just by natural procreative powers of his elderly parents..

First of all, the issue in Romans 9 is not "who are the children of God?" The issue is "who is the Israel of the promise?" Secondly, where are you guys getting the idea that faith is the basis for God's choice? Paul never makes that point.

Raybob
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:51 PM
then go to verse 4... who are Israelites

Isreal represents people of the promise. The promise was Jesus.


...where are you guys getting the idea that faith is the basis for God's choice? Paul never makes that point.

From Jesus.

Luk 13:26-28 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. (27) But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. (28) There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

They were of the promise.

Raybob

Philip dT
Jan 22nd 2009, 07:52 PM
First of all, the issue in Romans 9 is not "who are the children of God?" The issue is "who is the Israel of the promise?" Secondly, where are you guys getting the idea that faith is the basis for God's choice? Paul never makes that point.

Rom 9:8 specifically says "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God."

Teke
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:24 PM
First of all, the issue in Romans 9 is not "who are the children of God?" The issue is "who is the Israel of the promise?" Secondly, where are you guys getting the idea that faith is the basis for God's choice? Paul never makes that point.

I didn't post that the issue in Romans 9 is "the children of God". I gave a Galatians reference to that.
In Romans 9 I pointed out verse 7, in relation to "children" of Abraham.
In Galatians (4:21-23) Paul gives a symbolic interpretation of Abraham's two sons. Paul is not implying that they are not historical. Rather he asserts that OT history (and prophecy) is announcing something far greater.
In another thread I tried to show the Jewish Fenris this same concept from the prophecy in Isaiah 7,8,9.

I don't recall posting anything stating that God bases his calling on faith. However, I would say that once your called it is only evident if you are faithful to that calling.

John146
Jan 22nd 2009, 08:45 PM
First of all, the issue in Romans 9 is not "who are the children of God?" The issue is "who is the Israel of the promise?" Secondly, where are you guys getting the idea that faith is the basis for God's choice? Paul never makes that point.Rom 9:8 specifically says "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God."Right. And Gal 3:26 says, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.".

pinky
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:14 PM
This is how God defines one who is a 'Jew' ...

Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 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.


Is our praise of men........... as is the praise of the pharisees?

Should we say within ourselves "they have Abraham to their father".....as the pharisees do....... and as John rebuked them for?

Should we exhalt the flesh of men as sacred, holy and favoured by God.....as the pharisees do?

Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Is Godliness in the flesh of men.....or in the spirit through faith in Christ?


Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, 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.

The pharisees glory in their flesh genealogies....

Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.


Phl 3:3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

They have confidence in their flesh......should we as Christians do likewise and follow their doctrine of flesh?

Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.


Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.



Mat 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.


I beseech you my brothers and sisters in Christ, please, please please.......for the sake of the Truth in Christ......please beware of this pharisee doctrine that has crept into the church like leaven.


Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.


2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.





Rev 3:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=3&v=9&t=KJV#9)Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

BroRog
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:41 PM
From Jesus.

Luk 13:26-28 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. (27) But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. (28) There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

They were of the promise.

Raybob

Well, my question pertained to Paul's argument in Romans 9. I was asking where Paul, in Romans 9 placed faith as the basis for God's choice. In that passage Paul only gives two examples to make his point that a child of the promise is by God's choice: Isaac and Jacob. In both of these cases, the choice had been made before either of these boys were born. Neither of these boys were required to have faith or demonstrate faith as a prerequisite or a precondition of God's election.

As it turned out, both of these men eventually came to faith. But this condition came after the fact. By the time these men grew up to have faith and believe in God, God had already chosen them -- which seems to be Paul's point.

pinky
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:50 PM
Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

BroRog
Jan 22nd 2009, 10:52 PM
Rom 9:8 specifically says "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God."

I agree. This is correct. But I'm pointing out that the topic/subject of Paul's discourse here in Romans 9 is the promise God made to Paul's kinsmen of the flesh. I believe this was Tommy's point as well. If we follow the discourse from the beginning of the chapter, we must interpret his statement in Romans 9:6 in the light of the topic Paul wants to address.

For this reason it is important for us to be careful to understand what the real topic is. The way some treat this passage, it is apparent they think Paul has decided to redefine the term "Israel" so that he might find a way to include the Gentiles into one of God's promises, which obviously belongs to his kinsmen. In fact, he actually says that these promises belong to his kinsmen.

In my view, however, Paul isn't trying to mess around with the syntax of the OT to see if he can make it come out the way he wants. Rather, he is trying to defend his gospel against those who would point out that God made a promise to his kinsmen of the flesh who seem to be missing out on that promise. The answer to that objection can't be, "well, God has decided to define you out of existence."

BroRog
Jan 22nd 2009, 11:08 PM
I didn't post that the issue in Romans 9 is "the children of God". I gave a Galatians reference to that.
In Romans 9 I pointed out verse 7, in relation to "children" of Abraham.
In Galatians (4:21-23) Paul gives a symbolic interpretation of Abraham's two sons. Paul is not implying that they are not historical. Rather he asserts that OT history (and prophecy) is announcing something far greater.
In another thread I tried to show the Jewish Fenris this same concept from the prophecy in Isaiah 7,8,9.

I don't recall posting anything stating that God bases his calling on faith. However, I would say that once your called it is only evident if you are faithful to that calling.

I don't disagree here except to say that the topic of the discourse in Galatians is different than the topic of discourse in Romans 9. In Galatians, Paul argues that the blessing of Abraham comes to the children of promise and that the children are those who have the same faith as Abraham.

In Romans 9, the issue isn't the blessing of Abraham but rather the promise God made to Israel, which are two different but related things. When God made his promise to Israel, he was making it to the house of Judah and the house of Israel, which define the twelve tribes: the Southern Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the Northern Ten Tribes of Ruben and etc.

The specific element of this promise at question is this statement,

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 to Paul's kinsmen, the promise that belongs specifically and uniquely to them, is the promise that God would see to it that each and every man and each man's neighbor would know the Lord.It has never been true that each and every person in the house of Judah and the house of Israel has come to know the Lord.

That is the point at issue in Paul's discourse in Romans 9. "Is it true, Paul, that God still intends to save each man and his neighbor? It sure doesn't look like it." Paul isn't suggesting that God didn't actually and literally mean, "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." His conclusion at the end of Romans 11 is, "Sure, God will save each man and his neighbor, but not before he saves some Gentiles first."

Teke
Jan 22nd 2009, 11:49 PM
I don't disagree here except to say that the topic of the discourse in Galatians is different than the topic of discourse in Romans 9. In Galatians, Paul argues that the blessing of Abraham comes to the children of promise and that the children are those who have the same faith as Abraham.

In Romans 9, the issue isn't the blessing of Abraham but rather the promise God made to Israel, which are two different but related things. When God made his promise to Israel, he was making it to the house of Judah and the house of Israel, which define the twelve tribes: the Southern Tribes of Judah and Benjamin, and the Northern Ten Tribes of Ruben and etc.

The specific element of this promise at question is this statement,

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 to Paul's kinsmen, the promise that belongs specifically and uniquely to them, is the promise that God would see to it that each and every man and each man's neighbor would know the Lord.It has never been true that each and every person in the house of Judah and the house of Israel has come to know the Lord.

That is the point at issue in Paul's discourse in Romans 9. "Is it true, Paul, that God still intends to save each man and his neighbor? It sure doesn't look like it." Paul isn't suggesting that God didn't actually and literally mean, "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." His conclusion at the end of Romans 11 is, "Sure, God will save each man and his neighbor, but not before he saves some Gentiles first."

BroRog, I wasn't trying to make salvation a prophetic issue or treatment of nations.

Benaiah
Jan 23rd 2009, 01:53 AM
The Jews are a semitic people, they are not a distinct "race".

If Abraham started a Race that later became known as "Jews", then arabs are Jews, they descend from Ishmael, Abraham's firstborn son.

Likewise the descendants of Esau would be Jews, but the bible clearly says they are edomites.


Gen 36:9 And this is the genealogy of Esau the father of the Edomites in Mount Seir. God created a covenant people, not a race of people.

Being an Israelite\Jew was never Dependant on birth, a male born to Israelites who was not circumcised was cut off from the people and not part of the covenant.


Gen 17:14 "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." Any non Israelite\Jew could join Israel and become one of the covenant people, and wen they did they were to be considered as one native born, even to being given their portion in the land.


Exo 12:48 "And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.
Eze 47:22 "It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.God does not refer to Israel as His "race" of people, He refers to them as His covenant people.

*** Also look at the confession that an Israelite was to make when bringing his tithe before he Lord.


Deu 26:5 "And you shall answer and say before the LORD your God: 'My father was a Syrian, about to perish, and he went down to Egypt and dwelt there, few in number; and there he became a nation, great, mighty, and populous.

Philip dT
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:53 AM
I agree. This is correct. But I'm pointing out that the topic/subject of Paul's discourse here in Romans 9 is the promise God made to Paul's kinsmen of the flesh. I believe this was Tommy's point as well. If we follow the discourse from the beginning of the chapter, we must interpret his statement in Romans 9:6 in the light of the topic Paul wants to address.

For this reason it is important for us to be careful to understand what the real topic is. The way some treat this passage, it is apparent they think Paul has decided to redefine the term "Israel" so that he might find a way to include the Gentiles into one of God's promises, which obviously belongs to his kinsmen. In fact, he actually says that these promises belong to his kinsmen.

In my view, however, Paul isn't trying to mess around with the syntax of the OT to see if he can make it come out the way he wants. Rather, he is trying to defend his gospel against those who would point out that God made a promise to his kinsmen of the flesh who seem to be missing out on that promise. The answer to that objection can't be, "well, God has decided to define you out of existence."


Yet Paul has a specific meaning in mind in Rom 9 when he says the "children of the promise" are counted for the seed of Abraham. Earlier in Rom 4:13-20, Paul defines this expression: those who believe.

As I see it, the point that Paul is trying to make in Rom 9, is about God's intention (9:11). It is about those whom He calls (9:11). And what is this intention? Whom does He call? In verse 24, Paul says that God calls of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. This has do do with election, and how we understand election - a different discussion.

But I would say it is a fair conclusion that God's grounds for election is not ethnicity or works, but His promise: and as we have seen, "those who believe" partake in it.

BroRog
Jan 23rd 2009, 02:36 PM
Yet Paul has a specific meaning in mind in Rom 9 when he says the "children of the promise" are counted for the seed of Abraham. Earlier in Rom 4:13-20, Paul defines this expression: those who believe.

As I see it, the point that Paul is trying to make in Rom 9, is about God's intention (9:11). It is about those whom He calls (9:11). And what is this intention? Whom does He call? In verse 24, Paul says that God calls of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. This has do do with election, and how we understand election - a different discussion.

But I would say it is a fair conclusion that God's grounds for election is not ethnicity or works, but His promise: and as we have seen, "those who believe" partake in it.


I want to ask this question just to see what you might say. If Paul had already proven that God is calling sons of Abraham from among Gentiles as well as Jews in Romans 4, why repeat himself here in Romans 9?

timmyb
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:33 PM
I want to ask this question just to see what you might say. If Paul had already proven that God is calling sons of Abraham from among Gentiles as well as Jews in Romans 4, why repeat himself here in Romans 9?

that's a question I desparately want answered... Why explain Israel's situation to the Gentiles in Rome in Romans 9? Why tell the Gentiles they have a responsibility of preaching the Gospels to the Jews in Romans 10 and why explain the Jews fall and their eventual grafting in and the promise that all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26) if Israel was no longer relavant? Why all the detail and special attention to a seemingly irrelavant people? My only conclusion is that they are relavant

Teke
Jan 23rd 2009, 05:27 PM
that's a question I desparately want answered... Why explain Israel's situation to the Gentiles in Rome in Romans 9? Why tell the Gentiles they have a responsibility of preaching the Gospels to the Jews in Romans 10 and why explain the Jews fall and their eventual grafting in and the promise that all Israel will be saved (Romans 11:26) if Israel was no longer relavant? Why all the detail and special attention to a seemingly irrelavant people? My only conclusion is that they are relavant

Hi Timmy, :)

They are not irrelevant. They are as relevant as any other people. But Paul is a Jew so he has special concerns for the Jewish people. I can relate to this concept well being part of a church that is composed of many nationalities. While each nationality is especially concerned with others of their nationality, they are all the people of God.
For instance if you came to my church one Sunday and heard the many prayers said for the Russian people, you might wonder why this is being done in America. You might say, 'don't Russian Christians pray for Russians' or something of that nature.

This is the impression I get about Paul. While he is preaching in these letters, he is not forgeting about the national identity of his people in it all.

So while it may not seem as significant to other nationalities, it is to the Jews. This is not to say that it should be any less significant to us. We just aren't going to relate to it the way Paul does, because we're not Jewish.

As to the book of Romans. This is the only letter that Paul wrote to a church that he had never visited yet. So it is very doctrinally oriented and unique. But in both Romans and Galatians Paul deals extensively with the relation of the old covenant to belief in Christ, and how Gentiles can be full members of the new covenant by grace through faith. Which is why we read a lot of dichotomies and synergies by Paul. It's Paul's logic in his approach.

BroRog
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:06 PM
Hi Timmy, :)

They are not irrelevant. They are as relevant as any other people. But Paul is a Jew so he has special concerns for the Jewish people. I can relate to this concept well being part of a church that is composed of many nationalities. While each nationality is especially concerned with others of their nationality, they are all the people of God.
For instance if you came to my church one Sunday and heard the many prayers said for the Russian people, you might wonder why this is being done in America. You might say, 'don't Russian Christians pray for Russians' or something of that nature.

This is the impression I get about Paul. While he is preaching in these letters, he is not forgeting about the national identity of his people in it all.

So while it may not seem as significant to other nationalities, it is to the Jews. This is not to say that it should be any less significant to us. We just aren't going to relate to it the way Paul does, because we're not Jewish.

As to the book of Romans. This is the only letter that Paul wrote to a church that he had never visited yet. So it is very doctrinally oriented and unique. But in both Romans and Galatians Paul deals extensively with the relation of the old covenant to belief in Christ, and how Gentiles can be full members of the new covenant by grace through faith. Which is why we read a lot of dichotomies and synergies by Paul. It's Paul's logic in his approach.

Don't take this the wrong way but your answer to Timmy didn't really address his issue. (If you could hear my voice you would hear a humble tone of voice.)

Your point about how the body of Christ is comprised of people from all the nations is well taken. However, Paul, in Romans 9, is dealing with the completely opposite situation.

It's like this, I think.

The phrase "Body of Christ" indicates the set of all people who share one thing in common: each individual in that set is a Christian believer who affirms the gospel message, born of the spirit, united in spirit, message, hope, and destiny. They DO NOT share ethnicity, nationality, sex, economic status, age, or race.

The term "Israel", as it is used in the Bible, indicates the set of all people who share in the Mt. Sinai Covenant as a nation. And while the majority of people in this set are related to Jacob, others outside his family line can join themselves to Jacob through marriage or conversion.

I believe, and I think Tommy does too, that Paul's subject of discourse in Romans 9 through 11 deals with the second set of people, not the first set, with regard to a single question, "who are those who stand to inherit God's promise to Israel?"

The answer, I believe, is that the "Israel of the promise" consists of a nation of natural born sons and daughters of Jacob, who also happen to also be in the body of Christ.

Another way of putting is this. Paul talks about the true sons of Abraham in terms of their faith. And the group that comprises the true sons of Abraham come from every race, and people, and tongue and etc.

But in Romans 9, the issue centers on the sons of Jacob, taken as a whole and called "Israel", who happen to also be true sons of Abraham.

The issue in Romans 9 thorugh 11 isn't concerned with each and every true son of Abraham, but only those true sons of Abraham that are also physically related to Jacob, taken as a whole and called "Israel."

Teke
Jan 23rd 2009, 08:33 PM
The term "Israel", as it is used in the Bible, indicates the set of all people who share in the Mt. Sinai Covenant as a nation. And while the majority of people in this set are related to Jacob, others outside his family line can join themselves to Jacob through marriage or conversion.

I fail to see where Paul is speaking of marrying into or converting to Judaism as a means.


But in Romans 9, the issue centers on the sons of Jacob, taken as a whole and called "Israel", who happen to also be true sons of Abraham.

The issue in Romans 9 thorugh 11 isn't concerned with each and every true son of Abraham, but only those true sons of Abraham that are also physically related to Jacob, taken as a whole and called "Israel."

Here you sound very far off with such terms. ie. natural born etc.

Paul is making his point with Abraham because of the covenant. Not because of who was born by whom, IOW the people. Anyone who wanted to become part of the covenant was allowed to. They didn't have to be 'natural born', or married in, or converted, as you've put it. All that was required was to enter and be faithful.

Let's not confuse others with national identities, such as 'natural born'. Paul's point is that it doesn't matter where your born or who your parents are, Jesus has an open covenant to all. What he is proving to the Jews is that it isn't some exclusive deal. While some Jews may be offended by this, in their thinking it was only for them, he explains that God is/has been faithful to Israel in doing so.

A new open covenant is Paul's message. IOW it's a covenant message, not a Jew message.

The stipulation of the new covenant is that they accept Jesus. If they reject Jesus they reject God's covenant plain and simple.

Benaiah
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:06 PM
Jesus was pretty clear rejecting the idea that physical descent from Abraham made you one of the true children of Abraham.

Mat 3:9 "and do not think to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

Joh 8:37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.

Joh 8:39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.

Joh 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.
Joh 8:43 "Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.
Joh 8:44 "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

There is only one way to be a true child of Abraham, and that is through faith.

timmyb
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:11 PM
Hi Timmy, :)

They are not irrelevant. They are as relevant as any other people. But Paul is a Jew so he has special concerns for the Jewish people. I can relate to this concept well being part of a church that is composed of many nationalities. While each nationality is especially concerned with others of their nationality, they are all the people of God.
For instance if you came to my church one Sunday and heard the many prayers said for the Russian people, you might wonder why this is being done in America. You might say, 'don't Russian Christians pray for Russians' or something of that nature.

This is the impression I get about Paul. While he is preaching in these letters, he is not forgeting about the national identity of his people in it all.

So while it may not seem as significant to other nationalities, it is to the Jews. This is not to say that it should be any less significant to us. We just aren't going to relate to it the way Paul does, because we're not Jewish.

As to the book of Romans. This is the only letter that Paul wrote to a church that he had never visited yet. So it is very doctrinally oriented and unique. But in both Romans and Galatians Paul deals extensively with the relation of the old covenant to belief in Christ, and how Gentiles can be full members of the new covenant by grace through faith. Which is why we read a lot of dichotomies and synergies by Paul. It's Paul's logic in his approach.

Paul is writing the BIBLE here... under the direction of the Holy Spirit... this isn't national sentiment... There's no way God is going to let irrelavant national sentiment get in the way of his plan and what God wants to do on th earth... There is no way anybody would do the things Paul said he would do for the nation of Israel to be saved... no one would do that for their country's salvation... Paul would have gone to hell for that... There's really something in the heart of God for Paul to have written Romans 9:1-4 under the direction of the Spirit... God Breathed Scripture... not national sentiment

John146
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:24 PM
I agree. This is correct. But I'm pointing out that the topic/subject of Paul's discourse here in Romans 9 is the promise God made to Paul's kinsmen of the flesh. I believe this was Tommy's point as well. If we follow the discourse from the beginning of the chapter, we must interpret his statement in Romans 9:6 in the light of the topic Paul wants to address.

For this reason it is important for us to be careful to understand what the real topic is. The way some treat this passage, it is apparent they think Paul has decided to redefine the term "Israel" so that he might find a way to include the Gentiles into one of God's promises, which obviously belongs to his kinsmen. In fact, he actually says that these promises belong to his kinsmen.

In my view, however, Paul isn't trying to mess around with the syntax of the OT to see if he can make it come out the way he wants. Rather, he is trying to defend his gospel against those who would point out that God made a promise to his kinsmen of the flesh who seem to be missing out on that promise. The answer to that objection can't be, "well, God has decided to define you out of existence."We can see from other scripture that the promises extend to Gentile believers as well.

Gal 3
16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Teke
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:25 PM
OK, Timmy, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "national'. Perhaps 'religious' would have been a better choice. With Israel their national identity was/is interwoven with their religious beliefs. And yes, Paul was a strong advocate for their beliefs. ie. before Paul's conversion, as a Pharisee (religious leader), he went about gathering up Christians to be killed

Semantics aside, the point still stands that Paul is speaking about a covenant with God and the entering thereof.

BroRog
Jan 24th 2009, 12:03 AM
We can see from other scripture that the promises extend to Gentile believers as well.

Gal 3
16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Yes, John. But the talk in this thread is the identity of Israel. The church at large is NOT Israel.

BroRog
Jan 24th 2009, 12:11 AM
Let's not confuse others with national identities, such as 'natural born'. Paul's point is that it doesn't matter where your born or who your parents are, Jesus has an open covenant to all. What he is proving to the Jews is that it isn't some exclusive deal. While some Jews may be offended by this, in their thinking it was only for them, he explains that God is/has been faithful to Israel in doing so.

I disagree. Universal access to the gospel is NOT Paul's point in Romans 9 - 11.

Timmy has already pointed out several things in this text that refute that idea. And since it sounds like you will not provisionally suspend your own interpretation long enough to understand him, or me, I am going to bow out now.

What a waist of precious time. sigh.

Benaiah
Jan 24th 2009, 12:28 AM
Yes, John. But the talk in this thread is the identity of Israel. The church at large is NOT Israel.

What does the olive tree tree that the wild olive branches are being grafted into represent?

BroRog
Jan 24th 2009, 01:41 AM
What does the olive tree tree that the wild olive branches are being grafted into represent?

Not Israel. :)

Frankly, I don't think Paul intended the Olive Tree to represent one single thing, but several things all at once. First of all, he never actually explains it or identifies it. Secondly, the olive tree works pretty well as a metaphor without having an explicit analog in Paul's explanation.

The olive tree represents several things all at once: the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, Reconciliation with God, Forgiveness of sins, etc. -- all of the things he has been talking about in the rest of the chapter. The entire chapter has a few common themes running at the same time.

For instance, in Paul's olive tree metaphor he talks about branches being cut off. The concept of being cut off is expressed a couple of different ways in this chapter. In Chapter 3, Paul mentions that the Jews have an advantage in that they were given the oracles of God. But some of them didn't believe the oracles. This theme is picked up again here when Paul speaks about some of those in Israel being "hardened."

7 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 8 just as it is written, "God gave them a spirit of stupor, Eyes to see not and ears to hear not, Down to this very day." 9 And David says, "Let their table become a snare and a trap, And a stumbling block and a retribution to them.

In the passage above Paul summarizes the state of his own nation up to the present. Israel as a nation, taken as a whole, did not obtain what it was seeking, which we know to be God's declaration of "in the right." Israel as a nation was seeking that declaration but it did not hear that declaration. God would only grant that declaration to individual people in that nation; the rest of the nation were hardened.

To be "hardened" is conceptually the same is "being cut off." God hardened those who did not obtain God's declaration of "in the right", and he gave them a spirit of stupor. Since "stupor" is the lack of critical cognitive function, then the hardening involves a forced lack of understanding, which specifically affects one's ability to read and understand the scriptures. As Paul says elsewhere, "A veil remains over their eyes so that when they read Moses they don't get it." (paraphrase) In other words, to be hardened is to be cut off from being able to understand the scriptures and come to saving faith.

So then, in a sense, the Olive Tree represents the scriptures. To be cut off, is to be denied an understanding of them. To be grafted in, is to be given an understanding of them.

11 I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation [has come] to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. 12 Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! 13 But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. 15 For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will [their] acceptance be but life from the dead?

This line of argument only works if Paul is speaking about a national transgression, not individual sin. He says that his national transgression became the salvation of the Gentiles. What do we know about what happened? Gentiles got access to salvation through the cross of Christ; and Jesus came to be on the cross because Israel's national leaders conspired to put him there. Israel put her messiah to death, which was both a national transgression, and a means to salvation for everyone who believes. Her failure became riches for the rest of the nations.

We see from the passage above that Paul is still working with the normal definition of Israel. It was Israel that did not get what it was seeking. And it was Israel that killed her messiah. And it was Israel's transgression that became salvation for the world. Nothing in this passage hints at a "true, spiritual Israel" on which we are being grafted as if to a tree. Instead, the passage declares that the same nation of Israel that is partly believers and partly hardened people committed a national transgression, i.e. putting the messiah to death, which became riches to the world.

The term "riches" is simply a metaphor for the kinds of good things that came about due to Christ's death on the cross: reconciliation, forgiveness, access to the Holy Spirit, and the hope of glory. And so, in Paul's metaphor, to be cut off from the olive tree is to be cut off from these riches. And to be grafted in, is to have access to these riches. The Olive Tree doesn't represent Israel because it was Israel that committed the national transgression that became the basis for these riches. The hardened folks in Israel weren't being cut off from Israel, they were being cut off from 1. the ability to accept the truth found in her own scriptures and, 2. the riches which came about due to Jesus' death on the cross: reconciliation, forgiveness, access to the Holy Spirit, and the hope of glory.

"Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

How does this work? What is Paul getting at exactly? This idea is conceptually the same as his previous statement, "by their transgression salvation [has come] to the Gentiles . . ." To break a branch off of a tree is no easy feat unless, of course, the branch is already dead. A dead branch will snap off easily. And by analogy, the branches were dead because the did not believe the scriptures; they were hardened against them; they did not affirm the truth of them; and since they did not have the Spirit in them, they were lifeless, disobedient, obstinate, unbelieving branches.

It was the unbelieving, unwise, leaders of Israel that put Jesus on the Cross. In other words, the group of men who put Jesus on the cross did were not taking support from the root, they did not have reconciliation or peace with God, had no access to the Holy Spirit, didn't understand their own scriptures and hated his son. And consequently, God used these "cut off" branches to bring salvation to the Gentiles.

The olive branch, contrary to what the Covenant theologians say, is not Israel, but rather, the olive branch represents the riches of Christ's death on the cross. The unbelieving Jews were cut off from reconciliation, forgiveness, the Holy Spirit, and the hope of Glory, while the believing Gentiles were given access to these same riches.

Benaiah
Jan 24th 2009, 03:40 AM
The olive tree represents the covenant people. The natural branches that remain are the remnant, the faithful.

In acts peter quotes the prophecy of moses, that says that those who would not hear the one like him that God would raise up would be destroyed from among the people.

in the OT "Cut off" was frequently employed to denote death or someone no longer part of the covenant.


Gen 17:14 "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."


Exo 12:15 'Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel.


Exo 30:31 "And you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'This shall be a holy anointing oil to Me throughout your generations.
Exo 30:32 'It shall not be poured on man's flesh; nor shall you make any other like it, according to its composition. It is holy, and it shall be holy to you.
Exo 30:33 'Whoever compounds any like it, or whoever puts any of it on an outsider, shall be cut off from his people.'"



Exo 31:14 'You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people.


Lev 7:20 'But the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace offering that belongs to the LORD, while he is unclean, that person shall be cut off from his people.

I could post many more, What is clear is that the penalty for disobedience was being cut off from the people. and in Romans 11 Paul makes it clear that the unbelieving Jews are disobedient.

In Romans Paul Speaks of the Gentiles being grafted in with the believing Jews, in Ephesians he states plainly that while they were once strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenant, thru the blood of Christ they are no longer and that Christ Thru his work brought the Two, ( believing Jew and believing gentile) together as ONE new man.

Philip dT
Jan 24th 2009, 07:27 AM
I want to ask this question just to see what you might say. If Paul had already proven that God is calling sons of Abraham from among Gentiles as well as Jews in Romans 4, why repeat himself here in Romans 9?

I think Paul is addressing two aspects of the same truth in Rom 4 and 9.

In Rom 4, Paul accentuates faith as opposed to works of the law.
In Rom 9, Paul accentuates Gods intention and calling as opposed to ethnicity.

timmyb
Jan 24th 2009, 03:02 PM
OK, Timmy, perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "national'. Perhaps 'religious' would have been a better choice. With Israel their national identity was/is interwoven with their religious beliefs. And yes, Paul was a strong advocate for their beliefs. ie. before Paul's conversion, as a Pharisee (religious leader), he went about gathering up Christians to be killed

Semantics aside, the point still stands that Paul is speaking about a covenant with God and the entering thereof.

to imply that Paul was writing this letter to the Romans was the wrong connotation.. if we truly hold our beliefs that all scripture is God breathed and inspired by him, would it not be right to say that GOD, not Paul is writing this letter to the Romans? this is God breathed scripture, to imply any sentiment on the part of Paul is the wrong way to approach his letters... Is not ALL Scripture God breathed and inspired by him? If it is then God still has a plan for Israel that the majority of the church is ignoring... No matter that Paul was a Jew himself... this is God breathed canonized scripture that clearly says that God REALLY desires for Israel to be saved, 10 and 11 stay on that same subject... Romans 9 kicks it off and never leaves the subject nor does 10 or 11 stray from the subject of the mystery of ISRAEL

Teke
Jan 24th 2009, 03:47 PM
I disagree. Universal access to the gospel is NOT Paul's point in Romans 9 - 11.

Timmy has already pointed out several things in this text that refute that idea. And since it sounds like you will not provisionally suspend your own interpretation long enough to understand him, or me, I am going to bow out now.

What a waist of precious time. sigh.

I looked through the thread and couldn't find "several things" that Timmy is refuting.

Also, I didn't say "universal access" was Paul's point in Romans. I said the covenant was.
Let me explain another way and perhaps you'll understand better what I'm relating.

Salvation was promised mankind from the beginning. See Genesis and what God said about the "seed of the woman". This is what the second Adam, who is Christ, did for mankind.

Also....

Israel represents a covenant of priests for God. From which The Priest (God) comes forth. Moses was the first type. Israel clearly stated they did not want to talk to God directly but through ONE man.
Recall what the people Israel did in the wilderness for this covenant, they took a vow to God, like a priest does.

After the wilderness with Moses, Israel, the priesthood, corrupted themselves. So much so that we read of Samuel of Ephraim being sent to the priesthood to help them. Yet they still rejected their calling and asked for a king instead. Samuel (both a priest and prophet) clearly told them they rejected God before he anointed their first king.

So what one should carry from scripture is that God from the very beginning of our creation, planned to join us to Him in the manner which He appointed.
Being, that man would be a minister of God. This was the first command given to Adam, to care for the creation, IOW be a minister/priest. This is what Adam represents, as Eve represents the church (mother of all living), the creation which Adam ministers to or through, as she also represents the Spirit, as Adam represents the Father.

Adam begets a son who continues in this ministry, just as God sends His Son to continue the ministry.
This unique procession (which also represents the Trinity) becomes part of Israel when they take the vow of the covenant/the priesthood.

In such perspective, the priesthood is clearly seen. And the priesthood is the covenant.

Now the Son of God has come, who is The Prophet, and The Priest, as well as The King (God always was the Head of all this).

So who is Israel, but a corrupted priesthood that was salvaged by Jesus the Son of God. Which means that everyone got what they wanted. Jesus brought salvation for the Jews, Israel's priesthood, as well as fulfilling God's plan from the beginning.

Is that hard to understand?

Teke
Jan 24th 2009, 03:57 PM
to imply that Paul was writing this letter to the Romans was the wrong connotation.. if we truly hold our beliefs that all scripture is God breathed and inspired by him, would it not be right to say that GOD, not Paul is writing this letter to the Romans? this is God breathed scripture, to imply any sentiment on the part of Paul is the wrong way to approach his letters... Is not ALL Scripture God breathed and inspired by him? If it is then God still has a plan for Israel that the majority of the church is ignoring... No matter that Paul was a Jew himself... this is God breathed canonized scripture that clearly says that God REALLY desires for Israel to be saved, 10 and 11 stay on that same subject... Romans 9 kicks it off and never leaves the subject nor does 10 or 11 stray from the subject of the mystery of ISRAEL

The mystery of Israel is the priesthood. And yes, the priesthood is saved through Jesus.

As to scripture. Men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote it. When what was written didn't match up with what was known to have been written by certain authors, it was rejected by the council of the church as "scripture". So the reason Paul's letters are in our NT is because the church knew Paul wrote them (they had to reflect Paul's style). There were many writings in the first century, but not all of them were truly Apostolic writings. Hence the church's councils on the matter which ended with their canonization of the bible we have today.

Benaiah
Jan 24th 2009, 04:01 PM
if we truly hold our beliefs that all scripture is God breathed and inspired by him, would it not be right to say that GOD, not Paul is writing this letter to the Romans? this is God breathed scripture, to imply any sentiment on the part of Paul is the wrong way to approach his letters...

So we are supposed to understand that:

God despaired of Life,


2Co 1:8 For we do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, of our trouble which came to us in Asia: that we were burdened beyond measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life.

God wishes he were accursed from Christ?


Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,

You might want to give your view a bit more thought.

Yes it is scripture, but God did not take over the writers, while they were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit their personalities were not erased.

Paul saying he wishes he were accursed on Behalf of their brethren is nothing more than Him saying that if He could he would bear the burden and punishment of his lost brethren that they might be saved, this is a very Christ like attitude, because it is precisely what Christ did. So even when Paul is expressing his personal desires or opinion, they reflect the mind of Christ.

timmyb
Jan 24th 2009, 05:24 PM
The mystery of Israel is the priesthood. And yes, the priesthood is saved through Jesus.

As to scripture. Men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote it. When what was written didn't match up with what was known to have been written by certain authors, it was rejected by the council of the church as "scripture". So the reason Paul's letters are in our NT is because the church knew Paul wrote them (they had to reflect Paul's style). There were many writings in the first century, but not all of them were truly Apostolic writings. Hence the church's councils on the matter which ended with their canonization of the bible we have today.

i guess regardless of writing style, Paul's letters by virtue are scripture... and as such, the burden he has for Israel is not his alone but given to him by God... that cannot be explained away

Teke
Jan 24th 2009, 05:40 PM
i guess regardless of writing style, Paul's letters by virtue are scripture... and as such, the burden he has for Israel is not his alone but given to him by God... that cannot be explained away

I would not explain away our burden.
His burden is our burden, that being our calling by God to His priesthood.
Given the fact that Paul was already a priest, I would think that His revelation of Jesus compounded his burden.
No believer that is part of Christ's (God's) priesthood wants to see it corrupt or faulty.

timmyb
Jan 24th 2009, 05:48 PM
I would not explain away our burden.
His burden is our burden, that being our calling by God to His priesthood.
Given the fact that Paul was already a priest, I would think that His revelation of Jesus compounded his burden.
No believer that is part of Christ's (God's) priesthood wants to see it corrupt or faulty.

So, by your explanation, every believer should share with the burden of God to see all Israel aka the Jews saved

Teke
Jan 24th 2009, 06:05 PM
So, by your explanation, every believer should share with the burden of God to see all Israel aka the Jews saved

Every believer that is a minister of God is responsible to minister to others ie.love one another. Whether they are Jews or not (who knows but God, were Israel is among the nations). God is able to save whomever He chooses.

Christians need to be wary and not forget the first command given by God in Genesis. Else they will fall prey to the same fate as Israel. Israel is an example of a priesthood that only ministered to itself, IOW tried to establish it's own righteousness with or without God.
Christians shouldn't do that.

BroRog
Jan 24th 2009, 08:37 PM
The olive tree represents the covenant people. The natural branches that remain are the remnant, the faithful.

In acts peter quotes the prophecy of moses, that says that those who would not hear the one like him that God would raise up would be destroyed from among the people.

in the OT "Cut off" was frequently employed to denote death or someone no longer part of the covenant.

Gen 17:14 "And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."









I could post many more, What is clear is that the penalty for disobedience was being cut off from the people. and in Romans 11 Paul makes it clear that the unbelieving Jews are disobedient.

In Romans Paul Speaks of the Gentiles being grafted in with the believing Jews, in Ephesians he states plainly that while they were once strangers to the Commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenant, thru the blood of Christ they are no longer and that Christ Thru his work brought the Two, ( believing Jew and believing gentile) together as ONE new man.

The point is, the Olive Tree is not Israel.

BroRog
Jan 24th 2009, 08:40 PM
I think Paul is addressing two aspects of the same truth in Rom 4 and 9.

In Rom 4, Paul accentuates faith as opposed to works of the law.
In Rom 9, Paul accentuates Gods intention and calling as opposed to ethnicity.

So we agree; Paul is NOT repeating himself in Romans 9. And so if Paul is accentuating something different Romans 9 than he is in Romans 4, how does this refute the idea that Romans 9 is dealing with Israel as a nation?

BroRog
Jan 24th 2009, 09:05 PM
I looked through the thread and couldn't find "several things" that Timmy is refuting.

Okay, I understand that when we read each others posts we simply don't care what the other person is saying. So let me review.


Timmy -- I would clearly identify Israel as Paul identified them in Romans 9:1-3... they were his countrymen according to the flesh... who were Israelites who were committed the adoption, the covenants, the giving of the law and Christ.

Timmy has clearly identified the identity of Israel as Paul understood it based on context of Romans 9:1-3. He clearly sets up the topic of discourse as his "kinsmen of the flesh who are Israelites". It's hard to refute such an explicit statement of Identity. Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are Israelites.

In the next post, Timmy asks for a scripture that says otherwise. He still maintains that Paul clearly and explicitly identifies Israel as his kinsmen of the flesh.


Timmy -- if you could find scripture that says that... I've provided scripture that clearly states by Paul the Apostle that identifies Israel plain and clear in Romans 9:1-3 that Israel are Jews according to the flesh

In this post, Timmy makes the valid point that no matter what Paul's personal feelings are toward his own people, God would not allow Paul to make a mistake in inspired scripture. Therefore, Paul's explicit statement that his kinsmen of the flesh are the Israelites continues to stand.


Paul is writing the BIBLE here... under the direction of the Holy Spirit... this isn't national sentiment... There's no way God is going to let irrelavant national sentiment get in the way of his plan and what God wants to do on th earth... There is no way anybody would do the things Paul said he would do for the nation of Israel to be saved... no one would do that for their country's salvation... Paul would have gone to hell for that... There's really something in the heart of God for Paul to have written Romans 9:1-4 under the direction of the Spirit... God Breathed Scripture... not national sentiment


Paul's statement in Romans 9:3-4 has no wiggle room.


Is that hard to understand?

Actually, it was hard to follow. But it didn't really answer the exegetical question raised by Paul's statement that his kinsmen of the flesh are Israelites.

Teke
Jan 24th 2009, 10:52 PM
Okay, I understand that when we read each others posts we simply don't care what the other person is saying. So let me review.

Actually, it was hard to follow. But it didn't really answer the exegetical question raised by Paul's statement that his kinsmen of the flesh are Israelites.

See how you started and ended your post. Not very fair heh.

Initially when I posted in this thread, I stated I agreed with Pinky and those who were pointing out literal facts. The facts being that Israel was not composed of a certain race of peopel. It seemed necessary to us to point this out.

So while my explanations may not have appeared very clear, I was not contradicting myself in what I posted. Which is why I gave a more indepth explanation. I thought (and I could've been wrong) that verse 3 was the cause of the confusion, as we read of Paul's feelings about his kinsman. That is where it would seem some elaboration was needed.

I mean, how bad would you feel if you were part of a priesthood that was suppose to be for God, and later found out how badly corrupted that priesthood had become according to God Himself. Most likely you'd say something like Paul did. It shows concern over the matter. For sure no one could say that Paul who was preaching to Gentiles didn't care about his kinsmen.

Anyway, perhaps the double meaning there is just less important to some people. Evidently from the verses that follow verse 3, it was very important to Paul.
But hey, this is the end times forum where all sorts of things are concocted.
So I'll just ask forgiveness if I upset anyones dispensational eschatology with matters such as the priesthood.

timmyb
Jan 24th 2009, 11:57 PM
See how you started and ended your post. Not very fair heh.

Initially when I posted in this thread, I stated I agreed with Pinky and those who were pointing out literal facts. The facts being that Israel was not composed of a certain race of peopel. It seemed necessary to us to point this out.

So while my explanations may not have appeared very clear, I was not contradicting myself in what I posted. Which is why I gave a more indepth explanation. I thought (and I could've been wrong) that verse 3 was the cause of the confusion, as we read of Paul's feelings about his kinsman. That is where it would seem some elaboration was needed.

I mean, how bad would you feel if you were part of a priesthood that was suppose to be for God, and later found out how badly corrupted that priesthood had become according to God Himself. Most likely you'd say something like Paul did. It shows concern over the matter. For sure no one could say that Paul who was preaching to Gentiles didn't care about his kinsmen.

Anyway, perhaps the double meaning there is just less important to some people. Evidently from the verses that follow verse 3, it was very important to Paul.
But hey, this is the end times forum where all sorts of things are concocted.
So I'll just ask forgiveness if I upset anyones dispensational eschatology with matters such as the priesthood.

I'm trying to say that Israel has a very important role in the plan of God on the earth... Romans 11:29 is clear that God has not revoked his choosing of Israel and Jesus meant it when he said that salvation was of the Jews in John 4, Jesus himself is a Jew... we forget that the Jews are HIS countrymen according to the flesh...

Paul's national sentiment would not excuse him from putting it into scripture if it wasn't the heart of God... Would you do for your countrymen what Paul said he would do for Israel? This is an issue near and dear to the heart of God.

Teke
Jan 25th 2009, 12:14 AM
I'm trying to say that Israel has a very important role in the plan of God on the earth... Romans 11:29 is clear that God has not revoked his choosing of Israel and Jesus meant it when he said that salvation was of the Jews in John 4, Jesus himself is a Jew... we forget that the Jews are HIS countrymen according to the flesh...

Paul's national sentiment would not excuse him from putting it into scripture if it wasn't the heart of God... Would you do for your countrymen what Paul said he would do for Israel? This is an issue near and dear to the heart of God.

Timmy, are you saying, that Israel's important role is to bring salvation of Jews? I don't think that is what Jesus meant.

While I am taking into account, that this is the end times forum, and your trying to rationalize this, is this your eschatological view on the matter. Your salvation depends on the Jews? :confused

Benaiah
Jan 25th 2009, 12:14 AM
Timmy has clearly identified the identity of Israel as Paul understood it based on context of Romans 9:1-3. He clearly sets up the topic of discourse as his "kinsmen of the flesh who are Israelites". It's hard to refute such an explicit statement of Identity. Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are Israelites.

In the next post, Timmy asks for a scripture that says otherwise. He still maintains that Paul clearly and explicitly identifies Israel as his kinsmen of the flesh.

I don't think that anyone here has argued that there is not a national (flesh) Israel. why does Paul use the qualifier, "according to the flesh"?

Paul is pretty clear as to the status of Israel according to the flesh. They are "broken off" and "Cut off". and:


Rom 9:6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
Rom 9:7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
Rom 9:8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.

Paul s clearly saying that Just because someone is born a natural descendant of Abraham and is a citizen of Israel according to the flesh does not make them Part of the Israel that is the Israel of God. It is those who have the faith of Abraham that are the true Israelites in God's eyes. Being born of the blood of Abraham is not enough, they must have the faith of Abraham as well.

Those who were the natural descendants of Abraham that Rejected Christ rejected the covenant, they were therefore "broken off", "Cut off" from the covenant people. ( just s Moses prophesied) if they do not continue in unbelief they can be grafted back in and rejoin the covenant people. Rejoining their own tree.


Paul's statement in Romans 9:3-4 has no wiggle room.

Neither does Paul's statements in Galatians and Ephesians.



Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise,

Gal 4:24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar;

Gal 4:25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children;

Gal 4:26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.





Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh; who are called 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 and 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 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
Eph 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
Eph 2:16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
Eph 2:17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.
Eph 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
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,
Eph 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,


God has ONE people, who are ONE Body, ONE faith. and they are under ONE covenant.

timmyb
Jan 25th 2009, 12:20 AM
I don't think that anyone here has argued that there is not a national (flesh) Israel. why does Paul use the qualifier, "according to the flesh"?

Paul is pretty clear as to the status of Israel according to the flesh. They are "broken off" and "Cut off". and:



Paul s clearly saying that Just because someone is born a natural descendant of Abraham and is a citizen of Israel according to the flesh does not make them Part of the Israel that is the Israel of God. It is those who have the faith of Abraham that are the true Israelites in God's eyes. Being born of the blood of Abraham is not enough, they must have the faith of Abraham as well.

Those who were the natural descendants of Abraham that Rejected Christ rejected the covenant, they were therefore "broken off", "Cut off" from the covenant people. ( just s Moses prophesied) if they do not continue in unbelief they can be grafted back in and rejoin the covenant people. Rejoining their own tree.



Neither does Paul's statements in Galatians and Ephesians.







God has ONE people, who are ONE Body, ONE faith. and they are under ONE covenant.


so are you saying that Paul has contradicted himself? So, there has to be a middle ground to our views here... Cut Off? What about Romans 11:1 where it says Has God cast away Israel? God Forbid, Certainly Not, May it Never be

BroRog
Jan 25th 2009, 12:56 AM
Anyway, perhaps the double meaning there is just less important to some people.

What double meaning?

Benaiah
Jan 25th 2009, 01:01 AM
so are you saying that Paul has contradicted himself? So, there has to be a middle ground to our views here... Cut Off? What about Romans 11:1 where it says Has God cast away Israel? God Forbid, Certainly Not, May it Never be

When Paul says God has not cast away his people who does he point to as proof? does he point to an unbelieving Jew or to himself, a believer?


Rom 11:1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.


Then He continues with the story about Elijah, and the Remnant, the remnant was not the unbelievers it was the believers.


Rom 11:2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,

Rom 11:3 "LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life"?

Rom 11:4 But what does the divine response say to him? "I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal."



Paul is pointing out that like Elijah the romans are declaring Israel defunct, dead, all are unfaithful, and Like Elijah they are WRONG. Paul points to himself a natural descendant of Abraham who is faithful and a believer, he could also point to the other apostles (all Jews) to the myriads who had believed since the day of Pentecost ( all Jews)


Act 2:41 Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.


Act 21:20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

All Jews, ALL true Israelites.


Rom 11:5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace.


Clearly the remnant in view is NOT the unbelievers, it is the believers.

Teke
Jan 25th 2009, 01:03 AM
What double meaning?

That it is not just a matter of flesh and blood. There is that list that accompanies the statement on "Israelites". It is a list of priestly responsability.

IOW Israel is the name of the priesthood.

BroRog
Jan 25th 2009, 01:11 AM
I don't think that anyone here has argued that there is not a national (flesh) Israel. why does Paul use the qualifier, "according to the flesh"?

He doesn't say, "Israel according to the flesh." He says "my countrymen according to the flesh."


Paul is pretty clear as to the status of Israel according to the flesh. They are "broken off" and "Cut off".

Again, Paul doesn't say that "Israel according to the flesh was cut off."


Paul s clearly saying that Just because someone is born a natural descendant of Abraham and is a citizen of Israel according to the flesh does not make them Part of the Israel that is the Israel of God.That is NOT what he says. You are reading that theology into the text. Paul uses two examples to make his point: 1. Isaac, Ishmael, and 2. Jacob, Esau. In each of these examples, the boys are physical descendants of Abraham. Where do you get the idea that being a member of Israel has nothing to do with the flesh? In Paul's examples, God is choosing between two natural born sons of Abraham. Your view simply does not make sense of the text before us.


It is those who have the faith of Abraham that are the true Israelites in God's eyes.
Nothing is said of "true" Israelites.


Being born of the blood of Abraham is not enough, they must have the faith of Abraham as well.Not only that, but they must be natural born sons of Jacob.



Those who were the natural descendants of Abraham that Rejected Christ rejected the covenant, they were therefore "broken off", "Cut off" from the covenant people. ( just s Moses prophesied) if they do not continue in unbelief they can be grafted back in and rejoin the covenant people. Rejoining their own tree.What Covenant are you talking about. The New Covenant hasn't been started yet.


Neither does Paul's statements in Galatians and Ephesians.
True, but Galatians and Ephesians are completely different subjects.


God has ONE people, who are ONE Body, ONE faith. and they are under ONE covenant.Where does Ephesians mention a covenant? We are not under a covenant. God is going to establish a covenant with the sons of Jacob according to Jeremiah. Where do you get the idea that the Gentiles are part of that covenant?

BroRog
Jan 25th 2009, 01:18 AM
That it is not just a matter of flesh and blood. There is that list that accompanies the statement on "Israelites". It is a list of priestly responsability.

IOW Israel is the name of the priesthood.

Actually, it is a matter of flesh and blood, as Timmy pointed out and people here continue to ignore. Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are the Israelites. He says so explicitly. It isn't a metaphor, or a shadow, or an inference. There is no ambiguity or double meaning.

Benaiah
Jan 25th 2009, 01:55 AM
He doesn't say, "Israel according to the flesh." He says "my countrymen according to the flesh."

Paul is pretty clear as to the status of Israel according to the flesh. They are "broken off" and "Cut off".

Again, Paul doesn't say that "Israel according to the flesh was cut off."
Your the one that said,


Timmy has clearly identified the identity of Israel as Paul understood it based on context of Romans 9:1-3. He clearly sets up the topic of discourse as his "kinsmen of the flesh who are Israelites". It's hard to refute such an explicit statement of Identity. Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are Israelites.

In the next post, Timmy asks for a scripture that says otherwise. He still maintains that Paul clearly and explicitly identifies Israel as his kinsmen of the flesh.
Are you changing your mind now?


That is NOT what he says. You are reading that theology into the text. Paul uses two examples to make his point: 1. Isaac, Ishmael, and 2. Jacob, Esau. In each of these examples, the boys are physical descendants of Abraham. Where do you get the idea that being a member of Israel has nothing to do with the flesh? In Paul's examples, God is choosing between two natural born sons of Abraham. Your view simply does not make sense of the text before us.
Paul's point is that being a physical descendant of Abraham does not make one an Israelite, if it did, Ishmael and Esau's descendants would be Israelites.

In Galatians Paul says that the Jerusalem that is, ( the unbelieving Jews) are the children of Hagar, not Sarah. How much clearer can he get?

How about we bring Jesus into this as well? Here he is talking to unbelieving Israelites, physical descendants of Abraham.


Joh 8:37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.
Joh 8:39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.


Jesus Himself is clearly saying that while they are Abraham's physical descendants, (Like Ishmael, Like Esau) they are not his Children ( Like Issac, like Jacob).


Not only that, but they must be natural born sons of Jacob.Wrong, this was not required even under the Old Covenant, being an Israelite was never restricted to being a physical descendant of Abraham.

Are you forgetting Rahab the Canaanite and Ruth the Moabite? Both who are in the lineage of Christ.


Exo 12:48 "And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.
Eze 47:22 "It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.

What Covenant are you talking about. The New Covenant hasn't been started yet. Say what???????

The New Covenant went into effect at the death of the Testator who is Christ.




Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood


2Co 3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.



True, but Galatians and Ephesians are completely different subjects.They are Scripture and part of the same bible, and written by the same man under the inspiration of God, and as such are in harmony with each other.


Where does Ephesians mention a covenant? We are not under a covenant. God is going to establish a covenant with the sons of Jacob according to Jeremiah. Where do you get the idea that the Gentiles are part of that covenant? Today 08:03 PMAre you even remotely serious?

** I agree that God made no covenant with Gentiles, His covenant is with Israel, But Gentiles are not excluded from it any more than they were the previous one.

Teke
Jan 25th 2009, 02:03 AM
Actually, it is a matter of flesh and blood, as Timmy pointed out and people here continue to ignore. Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are the Israelites. He says so explicitly. It isn't a metaphor, or a shadow, or an inference. There is no ambiguity or double meaning.

I said, it is not just a matter of flesh and blood. I didn't say flesh and blood wasn't involved.

But really I have no clue as to what your view of salvation is. As I asked Timmy, does your salvation depend on Jews? Here is a quote from you that makes me wonder.


The New Covenant hasn't been started yet.

Hbr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Jesus established a new covenant/ new priesthood, it's called the Church.

Moses covenant 1) is external to man and cannot solve the root of mans problems, sin and death, 2) cannot reunite and and reintegrate man's soul, 3) is learned by teaching, 4) is heeded with fearful compliance and 5) gives imperfect forgiveness.

Christ's covenant, 1) is internal-it heals our nature, 2)unifies the inner man-heart and mind are joined in union with God, 3) is therefore grasped intuitively, 4) is heeded with willing cooperation (synergy), and 5) gives perfect forgiveness, even of those sins the old covenant was powerless to deal with.

timmyb
Jan 25th 2009, 03:02 PM
I said, it is not just a matter of flesh and blood. I didn't say flesh and blood wasn't involved.

But really I have no clue as to what your view of salvation is. As I asked Timmy, does your salvation depend on Jews? Here is a quote from you that makes me wonder.



Hbr 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel.

2Cr 5:17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Jesus established a new covenant/ new priesthood, it's called the Church.

Moses covenant 1) is external to man and cannot solve the root of mans problems, sin and death, 2) cannot reunite and and reintegrate man's soul, 3) is learned by teaching, 4) is heeded with fearful compliance and 5) gives imperfect forgiveness.

Christ's covenant, 1) is internal-it heals our nature, 2)unifies the inner man-heart and mind are joined in union with God, 3) is therefore grasped intuitively, 4) is heeded with willing cooperation (synergy), and 5) gives perfect forgiveness, even of those sins the old covenant was powerless to deal with.

Salvation is of Jesus... but the issue with Israel isn't an issue of salvation, it's an issue of covenant... I support Israel because time and time again God confirms his covenant with them... Israel has to come to Jesus like any of us which is the basis of their rebellion against God.... but like I said before... it's not an issue of salvation which is why many of us have an issue with Israel, It's an issue of God being a covenant God and him keeping his covenant with Israel even though they reject him.... the new covenant with the church is a salvation covenant, that in no way 'cancels' out the covenant that God has with Israel... that's the root of replacement theology...

Philip dT
Jan 25th 2009, 03:50 PM
Timmyb, you cannot devorce salvation and covenant from each other. In what way could an ethnical group of people be "God's people" without them being saved? Are there any New Testament grounds of people being "God's people" without being born again? The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God (Rom 8:16). There are no other grounds found in the New Testament of belonging to God.

In the OT, Israel was a physical and spiritual people. In the New Testament, the physical dimension, flesh falls away. Any grounds for being "God's people" apart from rebirth falls away (John 3:3-5). The promise to Abram was ultimately a spiritual promise, for the seed of Abraham is Christ (Gal 3:16), and we are children of this promise by faith in Christ (Gal 3:7).

Gal 6:15-16 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (16) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God."

All the church fathers of note were so called "replacement theologians" as was Luther and Calvin.

timmyb
Jan 25th 2009, 04:15 PM
Timmyb, you cannot devorce salvation and covenant from each other. In what way could an ethnical group of people be "God's people" without them being saved? Are there any New Testament grounds of people being "God's people" without being born again? The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God (Rom 8:16). There are no other grounds found in the New Testament of belonging to God.

In the OT, Israel was a physical and spiritual people. In the New Testament, the physical dimension, flesh falls away. Any grounds for being "God's people" apart from rebirth falls away (John 3:3-5). The promise to Abram was ultimately a spiritual promise, for the seed of Abraham is Christ (Gal 3:16), and we are children of this promise by faith in Christ (Gal 3:7).

Gal 6:15-16 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision has any strength, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. (16) And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God."

All the church fathers of note were so called "replacement theologians" as was Luther and Calvin.

the issue of God's covenant with Israel is not for their sake...

Eze 36:22 Therefore say to the house of Israel, So says the Lord Jehovah: I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.

God's covenant with Israel is not Israel's to keep... God made the covenant without any input on Israel's part...

Now the difference between the covenant we make with God and God's covenant with Israel is that we play a small part by saying yes to God... Israel as a nation did not have the opportunity, God chose them for his name's sake... and God will do way more to Israel to have them agree with that covenant

Benaiah
Jan 25th 2009, 04:42 PM
I think "replacement" theology is a misnomer, and something of a red herring. The Jews were NOT replaced. the faithful Jews continued on with their King, the unfaithful and unbelieving were purged from Israel. just as Moses said they would be.

Adding o the confusion is the word Ekklesia being translated "Church". in the Septuagint, The Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures some 200 years before Christ the word Ekklesia is used to describe the assembly\congregation of Israel. it is also used in Acts to describe the congregation of Israel.


Act 7:38 "This is he who was in the *congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, the one who received the living oracles to give to us,


* Ekklesia

It is Jesus Himself hat is True Israel, the Israel of God.


Hos 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son.

Matthre sais this prophecy is Fulfilled in Christ.


Mat 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son."

Jesus said;


Joh 15:1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.

Why does Jesus call himself the true vine? this is not merely an agricultural metaphor, any Jew would have known immediately what he was claiming.


Psa 80:8 You have brought a vine out of Egypt; You have cast out the nations, and planted it.
Psa 80:9 You prepared room for it, And caused it to take deep root, And it filled the land.
Psa 80:10 The hills were covered with its shadow, And the mighty cedars with its boughs.
Psa 80:11 She sent out her boughs to the Sea, And her branches to the River.
Psa 80:12 Why have You broken down her hedges, So that all who pass by the way pluck her fruit?
Psa 80:13 The boar out of the woods uproots it, And the wild beast of the field devours it.
Psa 80:14 Return, we beseech You, O God of hosts; Look down from heaven and see, And visit this vine
Psa 80:15 And the vineyard which Your right hand has planted, And the branch that You made strong for Yourself.

God charges the natural descendants of Abraham with having become a degenerate plant, an alien Vine.


Jer 2:21 Yet I had planted you a noble vine, a seed of highest quality. How then have you turned before Me Into the degenerate plant of an alien vine?

The Kingdom of God is not a democracy or a republic. in a Democracy or a Republic the state is the people. in a kingdom, the state is the king.

Jesus, the true vine, the king of Israel, is Israel. and those who believe and follow him are of Israel, those who rejected him were cut off, purged from among the covenant people.

Benaiah
Jan 25th 2009, 04:59 PM
God's covenant with Israel is not Israel's to keep... God made the covenant without any input on Israel's part...


Sorry, this is simply not true, While the covenant with Abraham was unconditional and required no input on Abraham's part, ( God put him into a deep sleep) The covenant with his natural descendants when they were brought out of Egypt was a conditional covenant. Not only did they have to agree to keep the terms and conditions of the covenant, obedience was a condition of the covenant.


Exo 19:2 For they had departed from Rephidim, had come to the Wilderness of Sinai, and camped in the wilderness. So Israel camped there before the mountain.
Exo 19:3 And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:
Exo 19:4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself.
Exo 19:5 'Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine.
Exo 19:6 'And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."
Exo 19:7 So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the LORD commanded him.
Exo 19:8 Then all the people answered together and said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do." So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.

Philip dT
Jan 25th 2009, 05:23 PM
the issue of God's covenant with Israel is not for their sake...

Eze 36:22 Therefore say to the house of Israel, So says the Lord Jehovah: I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.

God's covenant with Israel is not Israel's to keep... God made the covenant without any input on Israel's part...

Now the difference between the covenant we make with God and God's covenant with Israel is that we play a small part by saying yes to God... Israel as a nation did not have the opportunity, God chose them for his name's sake... and God will do way more to Israel to have them agree with that covenant

Eze 36:19-23 "And I scattered them among the nations, and they were scattered through the lands. I judged them according to their way and according to their doings. (20) And when they entered the nations where they went, they even profaned My holy name by saying to them, These are the people of the Jehovah, and they are gone out of His land. (21) But I had pity for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations where they went. (22) Therefore say to the house of Israel, So says the Lord Jehovah: I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations where you went. (23) And I will sanctify My great name, which was profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. And the nations shall know that I am Jehovah, says the Lord Jehovah, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes."

According to this passage, God has been extremely patient with Israel that He did not reject them even though they did not honour God's covenant with them, but that did not mean that God would go on like that forever. Inherently to that covenant is that God would reject them as a people if they do not obey God's laws and keep their side of the covenant. (see sien bv. Gen 17:9-14; Ex 19:4-5; Lev 26:40-45; Deut 7:12; Josua 23:15-16; 1 Kings 9:6-9; 2 Chron 7:19-22; Jer 34:12-22; Ezek 33:23-29; Mat 21:43). And so God did reject them as a people:

Isa 2:6-9 "For You have forsaken Your people the house of Jacob, because they have become full from the east, and are fortune-tellers like the Philistines. And they clap their hands with the children of strangers. (7) And their land is full of silver and gold. There is no end of their treasures and their land is full of horses; nor an end of their chariots. (8) And their land is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made. (9) And the man bowed down, and man was humbled, but You do not lift them up."

Jer 6:30 "Reprobate silver they call them, because Jehovah has rejected them."

see also Jer 12:7; Ps 78:59; 2 Chron 23:27; Hos 9:17; etc.

But God's rejection was at the same time the means by which the gospel would come to all. Now there is neither Jew nor non-Jew. All come to Him through faith.

The New Covenant was not 'n "second covenant" an "additional covenant" or a "parallel coventant", but:

Heb 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."

Other texts that indicate that the New Covenant/Testament has replaced the old:

Mat 21:40-45; Mat 8:10-12; Rom 11:19-20; 1 Pet 2:6-10

In the New Testament time, where the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, "Israel" is therefore not a people through flesh but through spirit:

Rom 9:6-8 "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (7) Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. (8) That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these ARE NOT the children of God: but the children of the promise [defined as "those who believe" according to Rom 4] are counted for the seed."

BroRog
Jan 25th 2009, 06:16 PM
Are you changing your mind now?

Not at all. The best way to understand an author, like Paul for instance, is to pay attention to how he uses his terminology. While he says "kinsmen of the flesh" I don't recall him using the terminology "Israel of the flesh".


Paul's point is that being a physical descendant of Abraham does not make one an Israelite, if it did, Ishmael and Esau's descendants would be Israelites.

I think his point is different than that. To understand his point, we need to follow his discourse from the beginning of the chapter. As Timmy has pointed out, Paul considers his own kin to be Israelites. In addition, he acknowledges that God has made promises to his kin that belong exclusively to them. And so, in light of what has happened thus far in Israel's history, he takes on the question, "Has the word of God failed?"

His short answer is, "no, although God made a promise to Israel, not all of Jacob's sons are included in that promise." In order to demonstrate this from scripture, he gives a couple of examples which demonstrate God's choice within the context of his relationship with the chosen people. His examples remain focused exclusively on the physical descendants of Abraham and then Jacob.

He starts with God's choice of Isaac; he moves on to God's choice of Jacob and ultimately Jacob's family line. To stop there would not make his case, because his task is to show that God continues to choose even among the sons of Jacob. And so he continues his argument with a verse from the Exodus in which God reserves the right to "have mercy on whom I will have mercy."

And so, his actual point is to say, "God's promise has not failed because the "Israel" of the promise will consist of those sons of Jacob whom God will choose from among them."


In Galatians Paul says that the Jerusalem that is, ( the unbelieving Jews) are the children of Hagar, not Sarah. How much clearer can he get?


I think his point in Galatians is clear and understandable. But his argument in Galatians is making a different point, than he makes here in Romans. The subject of discourse in Galatians are those who suggest that one must put themselves under Moses in order to find salvation from God. In that context, Paul observes that these folks have misunderstood the intent of the Mosaic Law, which was supposed to lead a man or woman to Christ, rather than become the basis on which one finds justification. In his analogy with Hagar the slave, he is attempting to say that those who continue to place their hope in keeping the Law of Moses as a means to justification are in bondage to the law. But those who have put their hope in the cross of Christ have come out of bondage and are now free.

In Romans 9, the subject is entirely different. In this passage, Paul is attempting to answer an objection to his gospel in which his detractors will accuse Paul of being a false teacher, since his gospel leads to the false conclusion that God's promise to the nation of Israel has failed. And so Paul has set out to defend the gospel against this charge by showing that the Israel of the promise will consist of those folks whom God has chosen.


How about we bring Jesus into this as well? Here he is talking to unbelieving Israelites, physical descendants of Abraham. Jesus Himself is clearly saying that while they are Abraham's physical descendants, (Like Ishmael, Like Esau) they are not his Children ( Like Issac, like Jacob).


Yes, this demonstrates that Paul and Jesus are in agreement on this point. But Paul incorporates this point into a bigger argument hel is making to demonstrate how God's promise to Jacob's children has not failed. In this instance, Paul's detractor wouldn't base the rebuttal on being part of Abraham's bloodline, but Jacob's bloodline instead, because the promise in question was made to the house of Judah and the house of Israel.


Wrong, this was not required even under the Old Covenant, being an Israelite was never restricted to being a physical descendant of Abraham.

Are you forgetting Rahab the Canaanite and Ruth the Moabite? Both who are in the lineage of Christ.

I'm not forgetting these people, just as I wouldn't forget that a foreigner could become an Israel if they attached themselves to one of the houses through the proper initiation processes. For a male, circumcision was required. In Galatians, Paul argues that a man need not accept the ritual of circumcision to be "in Christ." And so, the conclusion of the matter is that a man need not become an Israelite to be "in Christ."

In this section of Romans, the discourse deals with those who are already Israelites. It isn't a matter of whether or not a man should get circumcised and go through the initiation rites to become an Israelite. It's a question concerning God's promise to those who are already Israelites.


Say what???????

The New Covenant went into effect at the death of the Testator who is Christ.


While Christ and Paul both affirm that they are ministers of the new covenant, they are not saying, at the same time, that the New Covenant has begun. If it had, then Paul wouldn't have had to write Romans 9 - 11, because all Israel would have been saved at that time.



Are you even remotely serious?

** I agree that God made no covenant with Gentiles, His covenant is with Israel, But Gentiles are not excluded from it any more than they were the previous one.

We Christians act like salvation and forgiveness of sins is the only thing involved in the New Covenant. And it's true, Paul reminds us that God is offering his salvation to "whomever will call upon the name of the Lord." At the same time, though, God's New Coveant with Israel involves much more than forgiveness of sins and salvation.

For instance, while it is true that God grants a man salvation on an individual basis, he has not promised to save "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." When I became a believer, God did not save my neighbors and my family. How many Christians can say that when they became a believer, all of their neighbors and all of their family became believers at the same time?

Secondly, the New Covenant involves a return to the Law of Moses under the King Jesus in a theocracy based on that law while living in the land of promise. This has never taken place yet. And Christians are not likely to take part in this situation.

Gentiles are not excluded from salvation and the forgivness of sins. But they are not part of the New Covenant God will make with Israel at that time, unless they move to Israel and hook up with them and undergo the remaining major end-times events.

BroRog
Jan 25th 2009, 06:33 PM
But really I have no clue as to what your view of salvation is.

I don't think my view of salvation is any different than the Biblical view, but I am willing to be corrected. As Paul says, God is willing to save "whomever will call on the name of the Lord." This obviously would include Gentiles as well as Jews.

But since this thread takes on the question of "who is a Jew or the nation of Israel" we have decided to center the discussion around a passage in Romans 9, which seems to give an explicit answer to the question. Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are Israelites.

When he says, "kinsmen of the flesh" he means to focus on the familial aspect of his humanity: his blood relations. Those who are related by blood to Paul are Israelites. The topic of discourse from that point on to the end of Chapter 11, will focus on the disposition of the Israelites with regard to God's promise to them as a people.


Here is a quote from you that makes me wonder.

Quote:
The New Covenant hasn't been started yet.

As God says through the prophet Jeremiah, the New Covenant will be with the House of Judah and the house of Israel, essentially, the twelve tribes of Israel. At that time, he says, he will write the law on their hearts and they will not need to evangelize each other because, "they will ALL know me."

This has yet to be fulfilled.

pinky
Jan 25th 2009, 07:31 PM
Jer 31:31 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&c=31&v=31&t=KJV#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:

Isa 65:15 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Isa&c=65&v=15&t=KJV#15)And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:




1Pe 2:9 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Pe&c=2&v=9&t=KJV#9)But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:


Rev 17:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=17&v=14&t=KJV#14)These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

Benaiah
Jan 25th 2009, 08:13 PM
Not at all. The best way to understand an author, like Paul for instance, is to pay attention to how he uses his terminology. While he says "kinsmen of the flesh" I don't recall him using the terminology "Israel of the flesh".

So while you maintain that Paul's kinsmen of the flesh, are Israelites you don't think they are Israel?

I think that Paul's point is similar to that of Jesus.


Mat 12:48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?"
Mat 12:49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers!
Mat 12:50 "For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."

Jesus is not denying that he has kin of the flesh, But he maintains that it is the ones who do the will of his father that are his Brother, sister, and mother. ( Ie; it is the people of faith, not the people of the flesh).


I think his point is different than that. To understand his point, we need to follow his discourse from the beginning of the chapter. As Timmy has pointed out, Paul considers his own kin to be Israelites. In addition, he acknowledges that God has made promises to his kin that belong exclusively to them. And so, in light of what has happened thus far in Israel's history, he takes on the question, "Has the word of God failed?"

Paul's point remains consistent regardless of the letter.

When Paul tackles the issue of has God's word failed who does he point to as proof? Does he point to his "kinsmen of the flesh" ( who are unbelievers in this context) or does he point to himself a believer?


His short answer is, "no, although God made a promise to Israel, not all of Jacob's sons are included in that promise." In order to demonstrate this from scripture, he gives a couple of examples which demonstrate God's choice within the context of his relationship with the chosen people. His examples remain focused exclusively on the physical descendants of Abraham and then Jacob

I am assuming you meant Issac and not Jacob, since all of Jacobs sons became patriarchs of the twelve tribes that became Israel.

And Paul's point is that mere physical descent does not make one the children of the promise. Jesus made the same point and made it most emphatically when He said a man must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God.

Natural birth does not qualify you, no matter what your descent is. Like Issac the true child of Promise, and like Jesus himself, the true seed of Abraham, one must be Born\reborn by the will and power of God, not the flesh.



And so, his actual point is to say, "God's promise has not failed because the "Israel" of the promise will consist of those sons of Jacob whom God will choose from among them."

Paul's point is that God's promise has not failed because there is remnant ( of which Paul is one) of Jews who are believers.


I think his point in Galatians is clear and understandable. But his argument in Galatians is making a different point, than he makes here in Romans. The subject of discourse in Galatians are those who suggest that one must put themselves under Moses in order to find salvation from God. In that context, Paul observes that these folks have misunderstood the intent of the Mosaic Law, which was supposed to lead a man or woman to Christ, rather than become the basis on which one finds justification. In his analogy with Hagar the slave, he is attempting to say that those who continue to place their hope in keeping the Law of Moses as a means to justification are in bondage to the law. But those who have put their hope in the cross of Christ have come out of bondage and are now free.

And the point remains the same, Those of Israel in unbelief are the children of Hagar, Those who believe are the Children of Sarah, the children of the promise. And to underline the point that it is not birth but faith he tells the gentiles they are the Children of the freewoman (Sarah).


In Romans 9, the subject is entirely different. In this passage, Paul is attempting to answer an objection to his gospel in which his detractors will accuse Paul of being a false teacher, since his gospel leads to the false conclusion that God's promise to the nation of Israel has failed. And so Paul has set out to defend the gospel against this charge by showing that the Israel of the promise will consist of those folks whom God has chosen.

And I will point out again that in Paul's proof that God's promises have not failed is himself, a believer, he does not point to his unbelieving kinsmen. Paul uses Elijah's lament as well, and points out hat contrary to what Elijah thought God had 7000 believers among Israel.


Yes, this demonstrates that Paul and Jesus are in agreement on this point. But Paul incorporates this point into a bigger argument hel is making to demonstrate how God's promise to Jacob's children has not failed. In this instance, Paul's detractor wouldn't base the rebuttal on being part of Abraham's bloodline, but Jacob's bloodline instead, because the promise in question was made to the house of Judah and the house of Israel.


Jacob was onf the bloodline of Abraham. so either way the argument would include the bloodline of Abraham.


I'm not forgetting these people, just as I wouldn't forget that a foreigner could become an Israel if they attached themselves to one of the houses through the proper initiation processes. For a male, circumcision was required. In Galatians, Paul argues that a man need not accept the ritual of circumcision to be "in Christ." And so, the conclusion of the matter is that a man need not become an Israelite to be "in Christ."


What you are overlooking is that nce a stranger or alien joined Israel they were no longer a stranger or an lien, They were as one "native born".

And this s certainly what paul is saying in Ephesians and What Peter says as well.


Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh; who are called 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 and 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.


Why does Paul say they were once gentiles n the flesh? what are they now?


1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
1Pe 2:10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

Benaiah
Jan 25th 2009, 08:47 PM
Secondly, the New Covenant involves a return to the Law of Moses under the King Jesus in a theocracy based on that law while living in the land of promise. This has never taken place yet. And Christians are not likely to take part in this situation.


Sounds like a form of Dual covenant theology.

BroRog
Jan 25th 2009, 10:09 PM
So while you maintain that Paul's kinsmen of the flesh, are Israelites you don't think they are Israel?

Of course, Israel consists of Israelites. Why do you ask?


When Paul tackles the issue of has God's word failed who does he point to as proof? Does he point to his "kinsmen of the flesh" ( who are unbelievers in this context) or does he point to himself a believer?


He doesn't point to a person as proof. He takes three whole chapters to make his case. Incidentally, Paul doesn't use himself as proof that God's national promise has been kept. He uses himself as an example of the fact that God has not abandoned his people.


I am assuming you meant Issac and not Jacob, since all of Jacobs sons became patriarchs of the twelve tribes that became Israel.


No, I was including Jacob's sons, grandsons, great grandsons etc. I am using the phrase "Jacob's sons" or "the sons of Jacob" as a means to indicate his entire progeny, since people seem to object to the term "Jews" and make the infantile observation that Jews are simply people from the tribe of Judah. While one might be able to trace the term "Jew" back to the man "Judah" the Bible typically uses the term "the Jews" to indicate people from all the tribes of Israel. But because people want to get so technical as to be annoying, I adopted the phrase "sons of Jacob" to use in place of the term "Jews" in order to circumvent that problem. When I use the phrase "sons of Jacob" I mean to indicate all of Jacob's family line, including women and children, beginning from the time of the patriarchs to today.


And Paul's point is that mere physical descent does not make one the children of the promise. Jesus made the same point and made it most emphatically when He said a man must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God.

Natural birth does not qualify you, no matter what your descent is. Like Issac the true child of Promise, and like Jesus himself, the true seed of Abraham, one must be Born\reborn by the will and power of God, not the flesh.

Of course, but this isn't the issue of Romans 9 through 11. Granted, a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. That is true. But the promise Paul has in view is God's promise to the house of Judah and the house of Israel to give each and every person in those houses the rebirth. It's one thing for Jesus to announce that a man must be born again; it's another thing for Paul to defend his gospel in light of the fact that God promised to give an entire nation rebirth.


Paul's point is that God's promise has not failed because there is remnant ( of which Paul is one) of Jews who are believers.


No, this is totally wrong. If God merely saves the remnant, then the promise would fail. God didn't promise to save just a remnant. He promised to save them ALL. If God were to say to me, "I'm going to save your entire family" and if he failed to save my oldest son, then he did not keep his promise to me. If God only saves three out of four of us, his promise has failed.

Paul is dealing with a word of God to the house of Judah and the house of Israel that he would save "each man his neighbor and each man his brother." If God does not save, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, then his word fails. Saving a remnant is not an option.


And the point remains the same, Those of Israel in unbelief are the children of Hagar, Those who believe are the Children of Sarah, the children of the promise. And to underline the point that it is not birth but faith he tells the gentiles they are the Children of the freewoman (Sarah).


Again, you are taking a piece of an argument from out of Galatians and superimposing it on this one in Romans, which obliterates the point here. Granted, those of Israel who are in unbelief are the children of Hagar. BUT, BUT, God's promise to Israel is that he would take away their heart of unbelief. THAT is part of the word of God that Paul says will not fail.

Yes, as he says, today there remains a remnant. The fact of a remnant merely indicates that God has not abandoned his people. But the fact of a remnant does NOT indicate that God has fulfilled his promise to remove ungodliness from Jacob.

We can't read his promise in terms of our experience. We typically speak about salvation as God's response to our faith and our belief, as if faith was the prerequisite to salvation. We tend to think in terms of God's rewarding us with salvation at the occasion of our confession of faith. We believed and therefore God saved us.

Looking at the New Covenant promise, however, we see that God's transformation of the hearts and spirit of the people accompanies his forgiveness and salvation such that he promises to save the entire nation all at once, and their coming to saving faith is due to God's activity in them. If any one person in the nation is does not come to saving faith, then God did not keep his promise to save each man his neighbor and each man his brother.


And I will point out again that in Paul's proof that God's promises have not failed is himself, a believer, he does not point to his unbelieving kinsmen. Paul uses Elijah's lament as well, and points out hat contrary to what Elijah thought God had 7000 believers among Israel.

This only proves that God has not abandoned his people. It does not prove that God has kept his promise to save the entire nation.


Jacob was onf the bloodline of Abraham. so either way the argument would include the bloodline of Abraham.

Yes, Jacob was of the bloodline of Abraham, but no, the context of Romans 9 centers on God's promise to the nation of Israel as a nation. The bloodline in question is Jacob's bloodline. The reason why this concerns Jacob's bloodline exclusively is because God made an exclusive promise to them.


What you are overlooking is that nce a stranger or alien joined Israel they were no longer a stranger or an lien, They were as one "native born". And this s certainly what paul is saying in Ephesians and What Peter says as well.

I disagree. In fact, Paul is saying the exact opposite in Ephesians. In that epistle he makes the case that we have gained access to God through the Spirit of God because we are united in Jesus Christ. In Jesus, he says, we have become one new man.

This is not the same thing as being joined to Israel, which involved the rite of circumcision. Had Paul been preaching that we were joined to Israel, he would have supported those who maintained that we needed to become circumcised in order to find salvation.


Why does Paul say they were once gentiles n the flesh? what are they now?


He doesn't say they were formally Gentiles in the flesh. If that is what your translation has, then it is misleading you. Rather, Paul intended to say that the Ephesians were formally separated from Christ and aliens etc. He interrupted himself in mid-sentence to lay the basis for the separation, i.e. they were uncircumcised.

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision" by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Here, Paul merely relates a fact of history and culture. Why were the Ephesians not included in the commonweath of Israel? They weren't circumcised. Only a circumcised individual could be included in the commonwealth of Israel. Moreover, the Ephesians were unaware of God's plans to bring a messiah into the world because it wasn't something they needed to know in order to live life as an Ephesian. All of that stuff about a covenant and a Christ was Jewish stuff and had nothing to do with being an Ephesian.

Paul is trying to say, "Remember that time when you were totally clueless about the Messiah and I came to tell you about him? Remember that time? Remember me telling you that even though you were once without God and without hope, you can now gain access to God through Jesus Christ? Remember how the Jews wouldn't give you access to God and kept you out with a wall? Well Jesus was able to bypass those rules that kept you out of the temple to give you direct access to God through is Spirit. And those who gain access through the Spirit are now united into a new man.

The main point is this. Paul's letter to the Ephesians tells Gentiles that they now have access to God through the Spirit because of what Christ did on the cross, which means they don't have to become citizens of Israel to get it.

BroRog
Jan 25th 2009, 10:14 PM
Sounds like a form of Dual covenant theology.

I'm not sure what that means. But even though Paul mentions the fact that he is the minister of a new covenant, he never makes the New Covenant with God the basis of our salvation. Rather, the basis for Gentile inclusion in the hope of salvation goes all the way back to a promise God made to Abraham, which predates the other covenants by hundreds of years.

Raybob
Jan 25th 2009, 10:34 PM
I'm not sure what that means. But even though Paul mentions the fact that he is the minister of a new covenant, he never makes the New Covenant with God the basis of our salvation. Rather, the basis for Gentile inclusion in the hope of salvation goes all the way back to a promise God made to Abraham, which predates the other covenants by hundreds of years.


No, but the writer of Hebrews does.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Raybob

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 01:19 AM
Salvation is of Jesus... but the issue with Israel isn't an issue of salvation, it's an issue of covenant... I support Israel because time and time again God confirms his covenant with them... Israel has to come to Jesus like any of us which is the basis of their rebellion against God.... but like I said before... it's not an issue of salvation which is why many of us have an issue with Israel, It's an issue of God being a covenant God and him keeping his covenant with Israel even though they reject him.... the new covenant with the church is a salvation covenant, that in no way 'cancels' out the covenant that God has with Israel... that's the root of replacement theology...

I'd have to agree with Benaiah on you and Bro Rog attempting to show a double covenant.

The only covenant God has is with His priesthood. Be they Israel or Gentiles. This fact just becomes clearer with Abraham, and He wants the covenant of the priesthood to be a faithful one. So it is established by the faith/faithfulness of Abraham.

God makes a new covenant in that He transforms the old into the new. It could be termed a transfiguration by grace. Not a replacement. God appointed Jesus, the Son of God, as the new High Priest. Because Jesus is already a priest of Israel by birth, as well as a human person of humanity, and He, Jesus, is God, He can do this.

I don't know where some theologies come from, but mine come from the person of Jesus the Son of God. Not some rationalization of nations having control over God's grace which He freely extends to all.

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 01:29 AM
I don't think my view of salvation is any different than the Biblical view, but I am willing to be corrected. As Paul says, God is willing to save "whomever will call on the name of the Lord." This obviously would include Gentiles as well as Jews.

But since this thread takes on the question of "who is a Jew or the nation of Israel" we have decided to center the discussion around a passage in Romans 9, which seems to give an explicit answer to the question. Paul's kinsmen of the flesh are Israelites.

When he says, "kinsmen of the flesh" he means to focus on the familial aspect of his humanity: his blood relations. Those who are related by blood to Paul are Israelites. The topic of discourse from that point on to the end of Chapter 11, will focus on the disposition of the Israelites with regard to God's promise to them as a people.

Tell you what, show me throughout scripture, this is a consistent concept. Let's not base a conclusion on just one part of scripture. ("kinsmen of flesh")
Because evidently this can be shown to mean more than one thing.




As God says through the prophet Jeremiah, the New Covenant will be with the House of Judah and the house of Israel, essentially, the twelve tribes of Israel. At that time, he says, he will write the law on their hearts and they will not need to evangelize each other because, "they will ALL know me."

This has yet to be fulfilled.

Here you conclude that God doesn't do what He says. I also saw in another post where you believe the "nation" of Israel will be saved all at the same time. I do not see how you conclude such.

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 01:51 AM
the issue of God's covenant with Israel is not for their sake...

Eze 36:22 Therefore say to the house of Israel, So says the Lord Jehovah: I do not do this for your sake, O house of Israel, but for My holy name's sake, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.

God's covenant with Israel is not Israel's to keep... God made the covenant without any input on Israel's part...

Now the difference between the covenant we make with God and God's covenant with Israel is that we play a small part by saying yes to God... Israel as a nation did not have the opportunity, God chose them for his name's sake... and God will do way more to Israel to have them agree with that covenant

This is wrong Timmy. Abraham's covenant is not Israel's. And the difference is that Abraham's was of God alone. IOW God swore by Himself, because in that manner it couldn't fail. There was no greater to sware/promise by. And btw, Israel is only one of the nations of Abraham. Abraham had eight sons. Seven of them representing the world and the one representing the priesthood (aka the son of promise).

Israel after coming out of Egypt stood at Mt Sinai and agreed to a covenant of the law.


Exd 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These [are] the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

Exd 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.


The new covenant joins these two together. Which is why we enter by faith through grace, and the tablets of stone are no longer the guide, but rather God writes His guidance in our hearts.
Transfiguration by grace. This is an important aspect for resurrection.

Benaiah
Jan 26th 2009, 01:58 AM
Of course, but this isn't the issue of Romans 9 through 11. Granted, a man must be born again to enter the kingdom of God. That is true. But the promise Paul has in view is God's promise to the house of Judah and the house of Israel to give each and every person in those houses the rebirth. It's one thing for Jesus to announce that a man must be born again; it's another thing for Paul to defend his gospel in light of the fact that God promised to give an entire nation rebirth.


God charged the nation of Israel with breaking his covenant, the consequences of breaking the covenant was the destruction of the Nation and the scattering of the people. God always preserved a remnant of his people, those who were faithful. in this case they were the ones that accepted Christ. The idea that God is going to save them all is not taught by Paul, notice he says, "If hey do not continue in unbelief." they can be grafted back in.


No, this is totally wrong. If God merely saves the remnant, then the promise would fail. God didn't promise to save just a remnant. He promised to save them ALL. If God were to say to me, "I'm going to save your entire family" and if he failed to save my oldest son, then he did not keep his promise to me. If God only saves three out of four of us, his promise has failed.


God never promised to save every Israelite regardless of faith. He did however always preserve a remnant, and he did promise to save them.

Isa 10:21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, To the Mighty God.

Jer 31:7 For thus says the LORD: "Sing with gladness for Jacob, And shout among the chief of the nations; Proclaim, give praise, and say, 'O LORD, save Your people, The remnant of Israel!'

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.

Peter quotes this passage as being brought to pass on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2_16-21)


And notice who salvation comes to,

Isa 59:20 "The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," Says the LORD.

Rom 9:27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.


Again, you are taking a piece of an argument from out of Galatians and superimposing it on this one in Romans, which obliterates the point here. Granted, those of Israel who are in unbelief are the children of Hagar. BUT, BUT, God's promise to Israel is that he would take away their heart of unbelief. THAT is part of the word of God that Paul says will not fail.

I am making my argument from scripture, all of it, what you are doing is compartmentalizing scripture, as though one part had nothing to do with the other. But scripture is in harmony, it is not disjointed or compartmentalized.


Yes, as he says, today there remains a remnant. The fact of a remnant merely indicates that God has not abandoned his people. But the fact of a remnant does NOT indicate that God has fulfilled his promise to remove ungodliness from Jacob.

As I already noted, the prophecy says that the redeemer comes to those who turn from transgression.


I'm not sure what that means. But even though Paul mentions the fact that he is the minister of a new covenant, he never makes the New Covenant with God the basis of our salvation.

In point of fact he does make the case that our salvation is by the New covenant, almost in every letter. Paul repeatedly stresses that our salvation is by the blood of Christ. which is the blood of the New covenant.

Mat 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Rom 5:9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace

Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

Heb 9:18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

Heb 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

Heb 9:20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you."

Heb 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

Heb 13:20 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 02:07 AM
God charged the nation of Israel with breaking his covenant, the consequences of breaking the covenant was the destruction of the Nation and the scattering of the people. God always preserved a remnant of his people, those who were faithful. in this case they were the ones that accepted Christ. The idea that God is going to save them all is not taught by Paul, notice he says, "If hey do not continue in unbelief." they can be grafted back in.


Indeed, if they turn to God and repent, this agrees with the spiritual book of Deuteronomy which clarifies Exodus and the law.

Deu 4:29 But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find [him], if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.

Deu 4:30 When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, [even] in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;

Deu 4:31 (For the LORD thy God [is] a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them

So even if they broke the covenant at Sinai, they could still turn to God in Abraham's covenant.

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 02:34 AM
Tell you what, show me throughout scripture, this is a consistent concept. Let's not base a conclusion on just one part of scripture. ("kinsmen of flesh")
Because evidently this can be shown to mean more than one thing.

Well, I don't see how it can be taken more than one way.


Here you conclude that God doesn't do what He says.


How did you get that from what I said?


I also saw in another post where you believe the "nation" of Israel will be saved all at the same time. I do not see how you conclude such.

I've written a lot about this in this thread. Can you ask me a specific question about what I said?

God's promise to save the entire nation of Israel all at once comes from Jeremiah 31, in which he announces that,

"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."

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 03:05 AM
Well, I don't see how it can be taken more than one way.

I thought I showed that with Genesis. Isn't everyone a descendent of Adam.


How did you get that from what I said?



I've written a lot about this in this thread. Can you ask me a specific question about what I said?

God's promise to save the entire nation of Israel all at once comes from Jeremiah 31, in which he announces that,

"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."

All were concluded in unbelief that He would have mercy on all. (Rom. 11:32)
Do you believe this?
Doesn't mean He has to save any 'everyone" at the same time.

Jeremiah 31 is also quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12, 10:16,17 which testifies He has done this.

Benaiah
Jan 26th 2009, 03:10 AM
I've written a lot about this in this thread. Can you ask me a specific question about what I said?

God's promise to save the entire nation of Israel all at once comes from Jeremiah 31, in which he announces that,

"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 think you need to examine Jeremiah 31 a bit more closely, it is not saying that ALL Israelites will be saved, in fact the context is a people being regathered. and it is a people of faith, who have repented and turned to the Lord.

Jer 31:8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, And gather them from the ends of the earth, Among them the blind and the lame, The woman with child And the one who labors with child, together; A great throng shall return there.

Examine the scriptures in Which God speaks of Him gathering his people after they were scattered.

Deuteronomy 30 is speaking of the same thing as Jeremiah 31.

Deu 30:1 "Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God drives you,
Deu 30:2 "and you return to the LORD your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul,
Deu 30:3 "that the LORD your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you.
Deu 30:4 "If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you.
Deu 30:5 "Then the LORD your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.
Deu 30:6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.


Ezekial also speaks of the regathering.


Eze 20:34 "I will bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the countries where you are scattered, with a mighty hand, with an outstretched arm, and with fury poured out.
Eze 20:35 "And I will bring you into the wilderness of the peoples, and there I will plead My case with you face to face.
Eze 20:36 "Just as I pleaded My case with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so I will plead My case with you," says the Lord GOD.
Eze 20:37 "I will make you pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant;
Eze 20:38 "I will purge the rebels from among you, and those who transgress against Me; I will bring them out of the country where they dwell, but they shall not enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the LORD.



And you might note that Matthew says that Jeremiah 31:15 was fulfilled shortly after Jesus Birth.

Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:
Mat 2:18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more."

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 03:10 AM
God charged the nation of Israel with breaking his covenant, the consequences of breaking the covenant was the destruction of the Nation and the scattering of the people. God always preserved a remnant of his people, those who were faithful. in this case they were the ones that accepted Christ. The idea that God is going to save them all is not taught by Paul, notice he says, "If hey do not continue in unbelief." they can be grafted back in.

Yes, and they WILL be grafted back in. He goes on to say,

and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion. He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins."


God never promised to save every Israelite regardless of faith. He did however always preserve a remnant, and he did promise to save them.

Not regardless of faith. I never said that. I repeated what Jeremiah, Ezekiel and other prophets say about it. God will put his spirit in them, he will write his law on their hearts, he will change their heart of stone into a heart of flesh, and etc.


Isa 10:21 The remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, To the Mighty God.

Jer 31:7 For thus says the LORD: "Sing with gladness for Jacob, And shout among the chief of the nations; Proclaim, give praise, and say, 'O LORD, save Your people, The remnant of Israel!'

Joe 2:32 And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be deliverance, As the LORD has said, Among the remnant whom the LORD calls.

Here we are getting mixed up with the word "remnant". When Paul says that a remnant remains in his day, he isn't talking about the remnant that will exist then. For instance, Jeremiah 31:7 should be understood in the context of the entire chapter, which also contains the promise that God would save the entire nation. Obviously, the nation in view is the nation alive during the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy, which is a remnant of the people who survived the Great Tribulation, i.e. Jacob's trouble. Isaiah also talks about a group of survivors, which relates to a time when God will test the nation to see if she will believe him or not. During that test, Israel will be instructed to move to a particular spot and those who obey will survive. The rest will die.


Peter quotes this passage as being brought to pass on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2_16-21)

He didn't say it was brought to pass. He said the Pentecost was like the events in Joel. A casual comparison between the Pentecost and the events in Joel will reveal that much of the Joel passage did not come to pass at the Pentecost. For one thing, the world did not witness the celestial events mentioned in Joel. And more significantly, the Spirit was not poured out on ALL flesh, which will happen at the time God saves the entire nation.


Isa 59:20 "The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," Says the LORD.

Rom 9:27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved.

Again, these two verses do not refute the idea of a nation wide conversion because, first of all, the nation living at that time will be a remnant of Israel. And secondly, these passages do not necessarily imply that Israel will have believers living with unbelievers. And finally, neither of these verses say anything about the Gentiles.


I am making my argument from scripture, all of it, what you are doing is compartmentalizing scripture, as though one part had nothing to do with the other. But scripture is in harmony, it is not disjointed or compartmentalized.


I appreciate your effort. I think we learn a lot more from looking at entire texts of scripture rather than single verses taken out of context, but having made myself familiar with these passage already, I know what they intend to say. None of these passages refute or negate the other clear passages that God intends to save the entire nation of Israel all at once. I don't think you are trying to say that scripture contradicts itself.


As I already noted, the prophecy says that the redeemer comes to those who turn from transgression.

Actually, it's the other way around. When the redeemer comes HE will TURN them from their transgressions. It isn't as if they had already turned from their transgressions. God is the one who turns them. They don't turn themselves.


In point of fact he does make the case that our salvation is by the New covenant, almost in every letter. Paul repeatedly stresses that our salvation is by the blood of Christ. which is the blood of the New covenant.

Both things are true at the same time. Yes, we are saved by the blood of Christ. And yes, the blood of Christ is the basis for the New Covenant. But no, we are not, therefore under the New Covenant. God is doing more than one thing at a time. As Paul says in Ephesians, God has a manifold wisdom.

If we go back and look at Jeremiah 31:31 we see that God will make a New Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel, not like the covenant he made with there fathers when he took them out of Egypt. I guess I must point out that my fathers did not come out of Egypt as far as I know. God did not make a previous covenant with my people. Jeremiah 31:31 speaks directly to the sons of those who came out of Egypt, not a Gentile dog like me. This New Covenant will have nothing to do with me.

Looking at Isaiah again I don't see myself or my family at all.

Isa 59:20 "The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," Says the LORD.

I'm not Jacob. I'm not in Jacob. For all I know, I'm a son of Japheth or something. But it is clear from this passage you cited that the redeemer is coming to turn transgression away from Jacob, not me or my family line. Even when Isaiah talks about a remnant or the survivors, he is talking about a remnant from Jacob, which does not include me or my family line. The promise applies to Jacob and his family line.

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 03:31 AM
I thought I showed that with Genesis. Isn't everyone a descendent of Adam.

I don't think Paul was talking about the descendants of Adam when he penned Romans 9:3.


All were concluded in unbelief that He would have mercy on all. (Rom. 11:32)
Do you believe this?
Doesn't mean He has to save any 'everyone" at the same time.


Not sure what your point is here. The idea that God is going to save the entire nation simultaneously is not in Romans, but comes from Jeremiah.


Jeremiah 31 is also quoted in Hebrews 8:8-12, 10:16,17 which testifies He has done this.

First off, the author of Hebrews is talking to the Hebrews. One can hardly make the case that Jeremiah 31 applies to the Gentiles from an epistle clearly for an Hebrew audience.

Nonetheless, just because the author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31, doesn't mean he thinks it has come to pass. In Hebrews 6, for instance, he quotes Jeremiah 31 in order to make his point that a flaw exists in the Old Covenant, for why would God talk about a New Covenant if the first one was adequate? At the same time, in the same passage, the author of Hebrews says,

When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.


As of this writing, we see that the Old Covenant hadn't yet disappeared. Whatever is becoming obsolete, isn't obsolete yet. Whatever is ready to disappear, hasn't disappeared yet. And remember, this is being written after the cross, which is supposed to have started the New Covenant. If the New Covenant had begun, the author of Hebrews wouldn't have said that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete or ready to disappear. He would have said that the Old Covenant was gone. Period.

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 03:32 AM
I think you need to examine Jeremiah 31 a bit more closely, it is not saying that ALL Israelites will be saved, in fact the context is a people being regathered. and it is a people of faith, who have repented and turned to the Lord.

Jer 31:8 Behold, I will bring them from the north country, And gather them from the ends of the earth, Among them the blind and the lame, The woman with child And the one who labors with child, together; A great throng shall return there.

Examine the scriptures in Which God speaks of Him gathering his people after they were scattered.

Deuteronomy 30 is speaking of the same thing as Jeremiah 31.

Deu 30:1 "Now it shall come to pass, when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God drives you,
Deu 30:2 "and you return to the LORD your God and obey His voice, according to all that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and with all your soul,
Deu 30:3 "that the LORD your God will bring you back from captivity, and have compassion on you, and gather you again from all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you.
Deu 30:4 "If any of you are driven out to the farthest parts under heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there He will bring you.
Deu 30:5 "Then the LORD your God will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.
Deu 30:6 "And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.


Ezekial also speaks of the regathering.




And you might note that Matthew says that Jeremiah 31:15 was fulfilled shortly after Jesus Birth.

Mat 2:17 Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:
Mat 2:18 "A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, Refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more."

I can't really see how this refutes what I have been saying.

Benaiah
Jan 26th 2009, 03:45 AM
Yes, and they WILL be grafted back in. He goes on to say,

and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion. He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. This is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins."


Paul is loosely quoting Isaiah,

Isa 59:20 "The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," Says the LORD.

And just so we are clear, I suspect you are taking this quote as a yet future event, I do not. this took place when Jesus came the first time, He redeemed those who turned from transgression and turned to him.


the nation in view is the nation alive during the time of the fulfillment of the prophecy,

Your right that Jeremiah is one prophecy, how the the fact hat Jeremiah 31:15 is stated to have been fulfilled in Jesus day lead you to believe that it is talking about a time other than Jesus day?


He didn't say it was brought to pass. He said the Pentecost was like the events in Joel.

No he does not, he does not say this is kinda like Joel, He says,

Act 2:16 "But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

The problem here is that Peter's interpretation of Joel does not match yours, and apparently you think yours is the better interpretation.



A casual comparison between the Pentecost and the events in Joel will reveal that much of the Joel passage did not come to pass at the Pentecost. For one thing, the world did not witness the celestial events mentioned in Joel.

Now you are treating prophetic imagery as though it were written as modern newspaper report. Tell me, when it comes to the events of revelation are you going to be looking for a woman sitting on a beast? will you say, that can't be Jesus, there is no sword sticking out of his mouth.


And more significantly, the Spirit was not poured out on ALL flesh, which will happen at the time God saves the entire nation.


Again, your interpretation is at odds with Peter's. Peter did not interpret the events described to happen all at once. even more telling 3000 of the Israelites listening who are described as devout men, believed him and accepted Christ.


Both things are true at the same time. Yes, we are saved by the blood of Christ. And yes, the blood of Christ is the basis for the New Covenant. But no, we are not, therefore under the New Covenant. God is doing more than one thing at a time. As Paul says in Ephesians, God has a manifold wisdom.

you seem to be ignoring the Writer of Hebrews clear intent in contrasting What Jesus did and what Moses did, was Israel not under the covenant when Moses sprinkled them with the blood declaring "this is the blood of the covenant?

Let me challenge you, examine the Apostles claims where they say, "and so it was fulfilled", "as it was written". etc and look at the prophecies they are stating were fulfilled. and then ask yourself if you would have seen that using your method of interpretation.

Benaiah
Jan 26th 2009, 03:48 AM
I can't really see how this refutes what I have been saying.

Perhaps you can clarify then, it has seemed to me that you think God is going to basically cause ALL of them to believe, yet Ezekial says something quite different.

Benaiah
Jan 26th 2009, 03:54 AM
As of this writing, we see that the Old Covenant hadn't yet disappeared. Whatever is becoming obsolete, isn't obsolete yet. Whatever is ready to disappear, hasn't disappeared yet. And remember, this is being written after the cross, which is supposed to have started the New Covenant. If the New Covenant had begun, the author of Hebrews wouldn't have said that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete or ready to disappear. He would have said that the Old Covenant was gone. Period. At the time Hebrews was written the Temple still stood and Israel was still a nation. That was soon to Change. it s not a coincidence that the writer of Hebrews speaks of this being about to vanish away when discussing the sacrificial system.

Witness the radical transformation of the Jewish faith when the temple was destroyed. they certainly understood that keeping the precise terms and conditions of the covenant was not possible without the temple.

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 03:51 PM
I don't think Paul was talking about the descendants of Adam when he penned Romans 9:3.



Not sure what your point is here. The idea that God is going to save the entire nation simultaneously is not in Romans, but comes from Jeremiah.



First off, the author of Hebrews is talking to the Hebrews. One can hardly make the case that Jeremiah 31 applies to the Gentiles from an epistle clearly for an Hebrew audience.

Nonetheless, just because the author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31, doesn't mean he thinks it has come to pass. In Hebrews 6, for instance, he quotes Jeremiah 31 in order to make his point that a flaw exists in the Old Covenant, for why would God talk about a New Covenant if the first one was adequate? At the same time, in the same passage, the author of Hebrews says,

When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.


As of this writing, we see that the Old Covenant hadn't yet disappeared. Whatever is becoming obsolete, isn't obsolete yet. Whatever is ready to disappear, hasn't disappeared yet. And remember, this is being written after the cross, which is supposed to have started the New Covenant. If the New Covenant had begun, the author of Hebrews wouldn't have said that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete or ready to disappear. He would have said that the Old Covenant was gone. Period.

I think you've been talking to Fenris to much. :lol:

Your becoming to anthropocentric in your thinking. Adam to Abraham are not disregarded because of the covenant made at Sinai. The way I view Paul he is making this plain to the Jews who believe everything centers on Sinai and the giving of "the law". That legal system is what has passed away, and indeed it needed to. As scripture says, "The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:14 and Romans 10:8, Romans 10:9 declares plainly what the "Word" is....God)

John146
Jan 26th 2009, 04:31 PM
Yes, John. But the talk in this thread is the identity of Israel. The church at large is NOT Israel.Do you agree that there are two Israels mentioned in Romans 9:6? It couldn't be more obvious, right? So, what is the identity of each? For clarity's sake, I'll color code each Israel in the passage.

Romans 9
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.

The first Israel that Paul mentions is contrasted with the second Israel. The second Israel refers to the nation of Israel and natural descendants of Israel because it refers to the natural descendants of Abraham, which he calls "the children of the flesh".

Not all of the descendants of the nation of Israel are part of the first Israel. So, since it's clear that one's nationality has nothing to do with being part of the first Israel, then what is the criteria for being part of that Israel? He indicates that being part of the first Israel means that they would have been called in Isaac and would be children of God and children of the promise.

We can look at other scripture to see what being called in Isaac means and what the criteria is for one being a child of God and of the promise.

Galatians 4
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.

Here, Paul contrasts being a natural descendant of Jerusalem with being part of the heavenly Jerusalem above. This is the same thing he's doing in Romans 9:6-8, contrasting natural Israel with spiritual Israel. What did he mean in Romans 9:7-8 when he mentions being in Isaac and being children of the promise? We have that answer in the passage above. It has to do with being "born after the Spirit" and being a child of the free woman, which refers to the heavenly Jerusalem.

They are not all the Israel of God who are of the nation of Israel because in order to be part of the Israel of God you have to be "born after the Spirit" and "children of the promise". In Galatians 3, he makes it clear what conditions need to be met in order to be a child of the promise.

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

To be part of the Israel which is not of Israel you have to have "faith in Christ Jesus". One's nationality has nothing to do with it because "there is neither Jew nor Greek...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus". The first Israel Paul mentions in Romans 9:6 is described the same way the church is described.

John146
Jan 26th 2009, 04:52 PM
What Covenant are you talking about. The New Covenant hasn't been started yet. This statement here tells us all we need to know about how you view scripture. If the new covenant hasn't been started yet, then what are these passages talking about?

Matt 26
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.

How can anyone have their sins forgiven apart from the new covenant?

Hebrews 10
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.

The first covenant was the old covenant. It was replaced by the second covenant, which is the new covenant "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.".

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 05:11 PM
When the names are broken down to what they mean, the true meaning becomes apparent. Israel=God prevails Jerusalem=city of peace
Sum of which is, God prevails in peace. :hug:

pinky
Jan 26th 2009, 05:33 PM
When the names are broken down to what they mean, the true meaning becomes apparent. Israel=God prevails Jerusalem=city of peace
Sum of which is, God prevails in peace. :hug:

Yes, and "Israel" is a name of Jesus in the OT and "Jerusalem" is the heavenly city who is the mother of the free in Christ.

The true definition of these are spiritual and eternal............. and the earthly, temporal definitions were merely a shadow.

Let us come out of the shadow and into the light of the revelation in Christ.

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 06:50 PM
Paul is loosely quoting Isaiah,

Isa 59:20 "The Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob," Says the LORD.

And just so we are clear, I suspect you are taking this quote as a yet future event, I do not. this took place when Jesus came the first time, He redeemed those who turned from transgression and turned to him.

I understand. Yes, I am taking this as a future event.


Your right that Jeremiah is one prophecy, how the the fact hat Jeremiah 31:15 is stated to have been fulfilled in Jesus day lead you to believe that it is talking about a time other than Jesus day?


When Matthew uses the term "fulfilled" he doesn't necessarily mean "came to pass." Perhaps we could examine these one-by-one in another thread.


The problem here is that Peter's interpretation of Joel does not match yours, and apparently you think yours is the better interpretation.


I see no indication that Peter is interpreting Joel. But if one compares the events in Joel with the events in Acts, the only thing they have in common is an out pouring of the Spirit. But even at that, the Spirit was not poured out on all flesh as Joel says.


Now you are treating prophetic imagery as though it were written as modern newspaper report. Tell me, when it comes to the events of revelation are you going to be looking for a woman sitting on a beast? will you say, that can't be Jesus, there is no sword sticking out of his mouth.

When I sit down to understand a prophetic passage like Joel, I don't use a system. I don't decide ahead of time to read the passage like a newspaper or take everything literally or figuratively or whatever. My goal is to understand what Joel meant by what he said; and to that end, I study the entire book from start to finish. I consider who wrote it, when he wrote it, the historical context into which he wrote, who are the likely readers, how would they have understood the passage?

Now, we are free to disagree because I admit that I am not infallible and I get some things wrong. All I can do at the moment is call it like I see it.


Again, your interpretation is at odds with Peter's. Peter did not interpret the events described to happen all at once. even more telling 3000 of the Israelites listening who are described as devout men, believed him and accepted Christ.

In order for any of us to claim what Peter understood, we must agree on two basic things. First, Peter isn't changing what Joel said. Second, as Bible students, we should be able to go look at Joel ourselves to see whether Joel matches Acts.

As I read Joel, the portion speaking about the out-pouring of the spirit falls in a much larger context which appears to speak about a time when God will bring the people back to the land for the final time as he says, " My people will never be put to shame." The events subsequent to Pentecost could hardly be characterized as "never be put to shame." On the contrary, this people was put to shame 40 years later and then for the next 2,000 years.


you seem to be ignoring the Writer of Hebrews clear intent in contrasting What Jesus did and what Moses did, was Israel not under the covenant when Moses sprinkled them with the blood declaring "this is the blood of the covenant?

Yes, of course. I don't understand how my comments might lead someone to think that I was ignoring what the author of Hebrews said. I thought was being quite sympathetic with his wording when he tells us that the Old Covenant was becoming obsolete. And I don't know how to make sense of the doctrine that Jesus started the New Covenant when Hebrews says that the Old Covenant hadn't become obsolete yet. Granted, one could argue that the covenant ended at the destruction of the temple, but this hardly becomes an argument for the idea that the New Covenant started at the cross.


Let me challenge you, examine the Apostles claims where they say, "and so it was fulfilled", "as it was written". etc and look at the prophecies they are stating were fulfilled. and then ask yourself if you would have seen that using your method of interpretation.

I'm sorry. What am I looking for?

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 07:09 PM
Perhaps you can clarify then, it has seemed to me that you think God is going to basically cause ALL of them to believe, yet Ezekial says something quite different.

Well, we are speaking in general terms about a future event as described by God through the prophet Jeremiah. In Jeremiah, God announces that he will make a New Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. What he doesn't say is what will happen just before this point.

In Romans, Paul argues that the Israel of the promise will be a subset of the sons and daughters of Jacob. Not only will the Israel of the promise consist of Jacob's offspring, but these offspring will be of God's own choosing.

In Joel, we read that God will call his people back to the land and when they arrive, they will form a holy convocation at which time the nation will experience a "day of the Lord."

In Habbakkuk, we read that God required Habbakkuk to write a warning on a tablet. He warns Habbakkuk that the people will have two different reactions to the warning. Some will believe the warning, take action, and live; others will ignore the warning and die. Who ever believes the warning will live, "the righteous shall live by his faith."

Isaiah speaks about an existential milestone in which circumstances will force the people living in Israel at the time to decide whether they want to serve God or not. At that time, a great war will take place and a prophet will warn Israel that if they want to survive, they will need to go to a certain spot. If they do, they will live. If not they will die.

The survivors will comprise the Israel of the promise living at the time of the New Covenant.

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 07:22 PM
I think you've been talking to Fenris to much. :lol:

Your becoming to anthropocentric in your thinking. Adam to Abraham are not disregarded because of the covenant made at Sinai. The way I view Paul he is making this plain to the Jews who believe everything centers on Sinai and the giving of "the law". That legal system is what has passed away, and indeed it needed to. As scripture says, "The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart that thou mayest do it." (Deut. 30:14 and Romans 10:8, Romans 10:9 declares plainly what the "Word" is....God)

I know what the term anthropocentric means, but I'm unclear how my statements might be construed that way.

I also realize that the author of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant was passing away, but I can't find any place where it says that the Law passed away. I suppose one could argue that the Mosaic Law became a moot point after the temple was torn down. Even so, as I read the New Covenant prophecy, it speaks about how God will write his law on their hearts, which indicates that he will reinstate the Mosaic with some modifications perhaps.

Then, what you say doesn't seem to be a rebuttal of the idea that Israel consists of Paul's kinsmen the Jews.

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 07:59 PM
I know what the term anthropocentric means, but I'm unclear how my statements might be construed that way.

I'm not going to tell you how to explain things in your own words to someone else. Just pointing out that by your zeroing in on one element your missing the boat.


I also realize that the author of Hebrews says that the Old Covenant was passing away, but I can't find any place where it says that the Law passed away. I suppose one could argue that the Mosaic Law became a moot point after the temple was torn down. Even so, as I read the New Covenant prophecy, it speaks about how God will write his law on their hearts, which indicates that he will reinstate the Mosaic with some modifications perhaps.

I'm going to assume that by old covenant that you mean the one from Sinai. If so, yes I agree. The people there proved that people can't keep promises like God can. It served it's purpose IOW.
But if you mean the one with Abraham, I disagree. Abraham obeyed the actual voice of God, he didn't need any written law or someone to tell him to do that. He actually heard God talking to him.

God doesn't need to reinstate anything. The "law" or torah (the Hebrew word) is a reference to God's guidance. It doesn't mean that it is actually God, or that it can help you attain to godliness. Western rationalism wants you to think like that. That's Greek philosophy, like Plato or Aristotle, 'I think therefore I am". That's crazy talk for Christians.

It would amount to something like me telling you that the bible IS God Himself. Or showing you a picture of something and telling you the picture is the actual thing it represents.



Then, what you say doesn't seem to be a rebuttal of the idea that Israel consists of Paul's kinsmen the Jews.

You want a rebuttal.

Deu 26:5 And thou shalt speak and say before the LORD thy God, A Syrian ready to perish [was] my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous:

From the spiritual book of Deuteronomy it would seem "the Lord thy God" doesn't call the Jews 'Israel'.

In all reality, Jacob was Jacob. But God called him Israel. So who is Israel, but whoever God calls Israel. :saint:

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 08:07 PM
Do you agree that there are two Israels mentioned in Romans 9:6? It couldn't be more obvious, right? So, what is the identity of each? For clarity's sake, I'll color code each Israel in the passage.

Romans 9
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.

The first Israel that Paul mentions is contrasted with the second Israel. The second Israel refers to the nation of Israel and natural descendants of Israel because it refers to the natural descendants of Abraham, which he calls "the children of the flesh".

Not all of the descendants of the nation of Israel are part of the first Israel. So, since it's clear that one's nationality has nothing to do with being part of the first Israel, then what is the criteria for being part of that Israel? He indicates that being part of the first Israel means that they would have been called in Isaac and would be children of God and children of the promise.

As I see it, you made three mistakes in your presentation.

1. You said, "(I)t's clear that one's nationality has nothing to do with being part of the first Israel . . ."

What you said is roughly equivalent to saying, "one's nationality has nothing to do with being part of the United States." In fact, by definition one's being part of the United States IS a matter of nationality because the United States is a nation. That is, the term "Israel" is a label we use to indicate the nation in question. And the question under discussion seeks to identify who are the citizens of that nation.

2. Related to number one above, the phrase "of the flesh" indicates one's ethnicity or pedigree, not one's nationality. It's possible you meant to say that Paul is removing ethnicity or pedigree as a basis for being a child of God.

3. Isaac is just as much a child of Abraham's flesh as Ishmael was. For this reason, Paul can't be arguing that pedigree has nothing at all to do with it. All we can conclude from Paul's statement is that God is choosing one boy over another from among the same pedigree.


We can look at other scripture to see what being called in Isaac means and what the criteria is for one being a child of God and of the promise.

Galatians 4
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.

Here, Paul contrasts being a natural descendant of Jerusalem with being part of the heavenly Jerusalem above. This is the same thing he's doing in Romans 9:6-8, contrasting natural Israel with spiritual Israel. What did he mean in Romans 9:7-8 when he mentions being in Isaac and being children of the promise? We have that answer in the passage above. It has to do with being "born after the Spirit" and being a child of the free woman, which refers to the heavenly Jerusalem.

They are not all the Israel of God who are of the nation of Israel because in order to be part of the Israel of God you have to be "born after the Spirit" and "children of the promise". In Galatians 3, he makes it clear what conditions need to be met in order to be a child of the promise.

Your analysis suffers from the fact that the readers of Romans would need the letter to the Galatians in order to understand the letter to the Romans. That is, in your view, the letter of Romans does not stand alone but must be decoded using the letter of Galatians.

Whereas I contend that Paul is making a different point in Romans 9, than he is making in Galatians 3 and 4. In the context of Galatians we understand his allegory as a way to describe the implications of placing one's hope in the Law as a way to gain favor with God. Paul says that the Law was intended to act as a tutor that would lead his people to Christ, not as a means to find favor with God. In that context, his allegory serves as an illustration of the fact that putting myself under the law as a means to find God's favor will do nothing but cause me to be a slave to the law.

In Romans 9, the discourse seeks to explain the manner and circumstances under which God will keep his promise to Israel to save them as a nation.

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 08:19 PM
This thread is a good example of why Christians aren't suppose to think of themselves as nationalists, nor should race be a dividing factor as well. :rolleyes:

We are all just...human beings.....mankind.

BroRog
Jan 26th 2009, 08:29 PM
This statement here tells us all we need to know about how you view scripture. If the new covenant hasn't been started yet, then what are these passages talking about?

Matt 26
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.

How can anyone have their sins forgiven apart from the new covenant?

The context of this passage has Jesus sitting at the dinner table with the Twelve to celebrate the Passover meal. This last time that Jesus will celebrate the passover meal with his friends before he goes to the cross, he reinterprets a cup of the Seder in terms of what he is about to do. He intends to go to the cross so that the sins of many will be forgiven. This sacrifice will become the basis for the New Covenant God will make with Israel.

Just to remind us, here we have a Jewish prophet, king and priest, speaking to a group of Jewish men, about a Jewish covenant. And so, we can not take from this passage that Jesus is speaking about Gentile salvation. We need to go to other passages of scripture to find out things concerning the Gentiles.

For instance, the Twelve had no idea that God intended to grant salvation to the Gentiles until Peter's encounter with a God and Cornelius. In that encounter, and the meeting in Jerusalem afterward, the Apostles learned that God was giving his Holy Spirit to those outside of the covenant of circumcision, which essentially meant that God did not require Cornelius and his family to become citizens of Israel as a prerequisite to being saved.


Hebrews 10
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.

The first covenant was the old covenant. It was replaced by the second covenant, which is the new covenant "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.".


Two things here.

1. This book is written by a Hebrew to the Hebrews about Hebrew stuff. We must be careful not to read ourselves into places that aren't intended by the author.

2. It is not clear that Hebrews 10:9 is talking about the covenants. Taking this up from the beginning of the chapter we read.

10:1 For the Law, since it has [only] a shadow of the good things to come [and] not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those [sacrifices] there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me; 6 In whole burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin You have taken no pleasure. 7 "Then I said, `Behold, I have come (In the scroll of the book it is written of Me) To do Your will, O God.' " 8 After saying above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure [in them]" (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

In this context, we have two bodies, not two covenants. The blood of bulls and goats is the first body. This is the body that God would not accept. Instead, as he says, But a body You have prepared for Me. Jesus Christ is the second body. He takes away the first body, which are the animal sacrifices, in order to establish the second, which is the offering Jesus made on the cross.

Benaiah
Jan 26th 2009, 08:51 PM
Your analysis suffers from the fact that the readers of Romans would need the letter to the Galatians in order to understand the letter to the Romans. That is, in your view, the letter of Romans does not stand alone but must be decoded using the letter of Galatians.

I find this position rather bizarre, as it seems predicated upon the idea that the only thing that these Churches know about Paul is his letters, but i fact Paul tended to confine his letters to Churches he had founded or was affiliated with.

SO most of them had received personal teaching from Paul in Person, and even then, His letters were circulated among the churches, and Galatians was written before Romans.

Teke
Jan 26th 2009, 09:04 PM
Just to remind us, here we have a Jewish prophet, king and priest, speaking to a group of Jewish men, about a Jewish covenant. And so, we can not take from this passage that Jesus is speaking about Gentile salvation. We need to go to other passages of scripture to find out things concerning the Gentiles.

For instance, the Twelve had no idea that God intended to grant salvation to the Gentiles until Peter's encounter with a God and Cornelius. In that encounter, and the meeting in Jerusalem afterward, the Apostles learned that God was giving his Holy Spirit to those outside of the covenant of circumcision, which essentially meant that God did not require Cornelius and his family to become citizens of Israel as a prerequisite to being saved.

1. This book is written by a Hebrew to the Hebrews about Hebrew stuff. We must be careful not to read ourselves into places that aren't intended by the author.


For sure the Jews had no idea about a lot of things. Now your on the word "Hebrew". What is a Hebrew? The word "hebrew" is a Gentile noun meaning, 'one from beyond'='he who passed over from beyond' (in the OT usage meaning passed from beyond the Euphrates) , but in the NT usage it is based on faith, that is the faithfulness of God

Hbr 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

Indeed mankind are all hebrews in the sense of being "pilgrims on the earth". We will pass over from beyong in the resurrection. ;)

sheina maidle
Jan 27th 2009, 08:18 AM
A Jew is:

(1) A physical descendent of Abraham; a son of the nation Israel by birth.

And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (Acts 2:5)

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. (Acts 22:3)

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? (Romans 3:1)

(2) A Jew who truly believes in God.

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 2:29)

Me...I fit in the second category of "Jew"!

John146
Jan 27th 2009, 06:00 PM
As I see it, you made three mistakes in your presentation.

1. You said, "(I)t's clear that one's nationality has nothing to do with being part of the first Israel . . ."

What you said is roughly equivalent to saying, "one's nationality has nothing to do with being part of the United States."No, the first Israel is not referring to the nation of Israel. He said they are not all Israel (first Israel) which are of Israel (second Israel). The second Israel is the nation of Israel. Not all of the nation of Israel are part of the first Israel he mentioned. It would make no sense if he was saying they are not all the nation of Israel who are of the nation of Israel. How do you interpret it?


2. Related to number one above, the phrase "of the flesh" indicates one's ethnicity or pedigree, not one's nationality. It's possible you meant to say that Paul is removing ethnicity or pedigree as a basis for being a child of God. He's removing both race and nationality as a basis for being a child of God.


3. Isaac is just as much a child of Abraham's flesh as Ishmael was. For this reason, Paul can't be arguing that pedigree has nothing at all to do with it. All we can conclude from Paul's statement is that God is choosing one boy over another from among the same pedigree. But you're not seeing why that was the case. Based on other scripture we can see it has to do with having faith.


Your analysis suffers from the fact that the readers of Romans would need the letter to the Galatians in order to understand the letter to the Romans. That is, in your view, the letter of Romans does not stand alone but must be decoded using the letter of Galatians. No, the letter to the Romans teaches the same thing as the letter to the Galatians. It just so happens that he is a bit more clear and offers more information on certain aspects of the subject in Galatians. The following passages teach the same thing:

Romans 10:12 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. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

I believe it's wise to use scripture to interpret scripture, but I guess you don't agree.


Whereas I contend that Paul is making a different point in Romans 9, than he is making in Galatians 3 and 4.He speaks about what it means to be a child of God and a child of the promise in each one, so I don't know how you come to that conclusion.


In the context of Galatians we understand his allegory as a way to describe the implications of placing one's hope in the Law as a way to gain favor with God. Paul says that the Law was intended to act as a tutor that would lead his people to Christ, not as a means to find favor with God. In that context, his allegory serves as an illustration of the fact that putting myself under the law as a means to find God's favor will do nothing but cause me to be a slave to the law.

In Romans 9, the discourse seeks to explain the manner and circumstances under which God will keep his promise to Israel to save them as a nation.I disagree. In both passages, he speaks about what it means to be a child of God and a child of the promise and he makes it clear that one's race or nationality is not a factor in someone being a child of God and a child of the promise.

John146
Jan 27th 2009, 06:21 PM
The context of this passage has Jesus sitting at the dinner table with the Twelve to celebrate the Passover meal. This last time that Jesus will celebrate the passover meal with his friends before he goes to the cross, he reinterprets a cup of the Seder in terms of what he is about to do. He intends to go to the cross so that the sins of many will be forgiven. This sacrifice will become the basis for the New Covenant God will make with Israel.

Just to remind us, here we have a Jewish prophet, king and priest, speaking to a group of Jewish men, about a Jewish covenant. And so, we can not take from this passage that Jesus is speaking about Gentile salvation. We need to go to other passages of scripture to find out things concerning the Gentiles.

For instance, the Twelve had no idea that God intended to grant salvation to the Gentiles until Peter's encounter with a God and Cornelius. In that encounter, and the meeting in Jerusalem afterward, the Apostles learned that God was giving his Holy Spirit to those outside of the covenant of circumcision, which essentially meant that God did not require Cornelius and his family to become citizens of Israel as a prerequisite to being saved. Yes, it was clarified that Gentile believers, too, are covered under the new covenant. Let me ask you something. Have the Jews who have been saved the last 2,000 years not been saved under the new covenant? Don't you know that no one can be saved except under the new covenant of Christ's blood?


Two things here.

1. This book is written by a Hebrew to the Hebrews about Hebrew stuff. We must be careful not to read ourselves into places that aren't intended by the author.Does the following passage only apply to Hebrews?

Hebrews 10
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.

Are Gentiles not sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ? When it says "once for all" does it only mean all Hebrews?


2. It is not clear that Hebrews 10:9 is talking about the covenants. Taking this up from the beginning of the chapter we read.

10:1 For the Law, since it has [only] a shadow of the good things to come [and] not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those [sacrifices] there is a reminder of sins year by year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, But a body You have prepared for Me; 6 In whole burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin You have taken no pleasure. 7 "Then I said, `Behold, I have come (In the scroll of the book it is written of Me) To do Your will, O God.' " 8 After saying above, "Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure [in them]" (which are offered according to the Law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will." He takes away the first in order to establish the second. 10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

In this context, we have two bodies, not two covenants. The blood of bulls and goats is the first body. This is the body that God would not accept. Instead, as he says, But a body You have prepared for Me. Jesus Christ is the second body. He takes away the first body, which are the animal sacrifices, in order to establish the second, which is the offering Jesus made on the cross.Come on. :rolleyes:

Let's back up a couple chapters so that we can see that Hebrews 10 does indeed speak of the first and second covenants and not first and second bodies.

Hebrews 8
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.

Moving on to the next chapter.

Hebrews 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

So, throughout the preceding two chapters we clearly see that the first covenant is the old covenant and refers to the sacrifice of calves and goats. The second and new covenant refers to the covenant instituted by Christ's sacrifice. So, by knowing what is talked about in Hebrews 8 and 9 regarding the first and second covenants, it establishes the context and should make it obvious that Hebrews 10:9-10 is referring to the first and second covenants and not the first and second bodies as you are trying to claim.

BroRog
Jan 27th 2009, 07:08 PM
No, the first Israel is not referring to the nation of Israel. He said they are not all Israel (first Israel) which are of Israel (second Israel). The second Israel is the nation of Israel. Not all of the nation of Israel are part of the first Israel he mentioned. It would make no sense if he was saying they are not all the nation of Israel who are of the nation of Israel. How do you interpret it?

We understand from his introduction to the subject and his statement in 9:6 that the first Israel is the Israel that will exist when God carries out his obligation to them as a people. The second Israel indicates the children of Jacob, taken as a whole. Paul is saying, "When God decides to fulfill his obligation to the nation of Israel, that nation will not include each and every child that comes out of Jacob. Rather, when the time comes, the children of Jacob in the natural sense will also be children of Abraham in the spiritual sense and they will be of God's own choosing."

That's how I understand it.


He's removing both race and nationality as a basis for being a child of God.


Yes, I see that in Romans 4, he has already removed race and nationality as a basis for being a child of God. But here in Romans 9, I see a different issue on the table. Here the topic doesn't seem to be "who is a child of God", but rather, "who will comprise the nation of Israel when God keeps his obligation to them as a people."

Since his case examples remain focused on Abraham's natural born sons, the question at issue seems to be, "Who among the natural born sons of Abraham, which are also natural born sons of Jacob, will comprise the "Israel" to whom God will keep his obligation?" The answer comes back, "The Israel of that promise will comprise natural born children of Jacob that are also spiritual sons of Abraham."


But you're not seeing why that was the case. Based on other scripture we can see it has to do with having faith.


I agree with that. Can you agree with me that Paul's case examples remained focused on natural born sons of Abraham? If so, then you can see why I interpret this passage the way I do. I think what you said is very much a part of his point. The citizens of Israel living at the time when God decides to fulfill his obligation to them, will be people of faith. In fact, I believe they will all accept Jesus Christ as lord and savior.

Some people think that Paul has redefined the term "Israel" here in order to bring believing Gentiles into a union with believing Jews to establish a new type of "nation" which is not bound by land or ethnicity or any other thing. Believe me, I can understand why people go that direction.

I don't happen to think that Paul is redefining Israel, but rather, he is helping us see what will happen to Israel eventually. It's very appropriate that this discussion be found in the End Times Forum because Paul is telling us that God still intends to keep his obligation to Jacob, which I believe remains to happen in our future.


I believe it's wise to use scripture to interpret scripture, but I guess you don't agree.


You're right. I wouldn't agree that this is a wise hermeneutic. While I agree that the two verses you quoted are saying the same thing, I find them being said in two different discourses with two different subjects at hand. I have found that the New Testament repeats often common ideas and themes such as the one you pointed out. And they get repeated in a variety of places in which the topic at issue is different. Therefore, I wouldn't automatically conclude that the presence of a common idea in two passages means that the two passages have the same main subject.

It's not that I disagree with the principle that one passage of scripture can enlighten another passage. I think this happens all the time. And I also agree with the principle of Bible interpretation that assumes from the outset that scripture will never contradict scripture. I also think, though, that a particular epistle of Paul needs to stand on its own, or at least, I need to see if I can understand it on its own terms as I resist the temptation of importing ideas from another epistle into it. I realize this is not always possible but I give it a good try before I give up.


He speaks about what it means to be a child of God and a child of the promise in each one, so I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

I agree, each passage shares the common theme that a child of God is a child according to his choosing, and that each child of God will share the same faith as Abraham. But I also see that the main topic of Galatians 3-4 is different than the main topic of Romans 9-11. The common theme that the children of God are Abraham's sons by faith appears in each discourse. But Paul uses this common theme to make different two different and true points: God justifies those of faith; and God chooses who will be in Israel during the time he keeps his obligation to them as a people.


I disagree. In both passages, he speaks about what it means to be a child of God and a child of the promise and he makes it clear that one's race or nationality is not a factor in someone being a child of God and a child of the promise.


Okay, but in Romans 9, the issue centers around the question of "who is Israel", which is not an issue in Galatians. If you have a Bible word search program, do a word search on the word "Israel" as it is found in the book of Romans. I believe you will find that the word "Israel" only appears in Romans chapter 9 through 11. It never appears anywhere else in Romans. It appears to me, that when Paul wants to talk about how the Gentiles are included along with the Jews in God's plan of salvation by faith, he speaks in terms of "Jews and Greeks." But when the subject turns to Jacob's people who live in Israel, suddenly his vocabulary switches to Israel and Gentiles (other nations).

Check it out and let me know what you think.

BroRog
Jan 27th 2009, 07:40 PM
Yes, it was clarified that Gentile believers, too, are covered under the new covenant. Let me ask you something. Have the Jews who have been saved the last 2,000 years not been saved under the new covenant? Don't you know that no one can be saved except under the new covenant of Christ's blood?

Okay, since we are in Hebrews, let me answer your objection from Hebrews. In Hebrews 11, Paul points out that God was saving individuals all through history -- all the way from Abel to Enoch to Noah to Moses and on down the line. In many cases, we have no Biblical evidence that these people had a clue about Jesus or the cross. In fact, Paul says that God granted his favor to those who "believe that God exists and that he rewards those who seek him." which is a faith that contains a scant amount of content.

We have discussions all the time centered on the question of how God saves those who were born before Jesus came. Moses, and David, and Noah, and men like that, were saved without ever knowing that Jesus was the Messiah and that he died on a cross to save us from our sins. Some of them knew that God would provide a messiah. And some of them knew that God would provide a means to salvation that had nothing at all to do with animal sacrifices. But none of them knew that a man named Jesus would be the one. And none of them knew that he would die on a cross to save us from our sins.

But we say, these men were saved because the effects of the cross go backward in time and become the basis on which the men of old were saved. We say that faith has always been the basis of God's justification and that the cross has always been God's plan to provide us with forgiveness of our sins. The effects of the cross apply backward in time to the men of old and they apply forward in time to us. We are all saved because of what Jesus did on the cross.

Now, when we say all this, are we also saying that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Moses, David, and etc. were under the New Covenant? Are we saying that Moses was saved by the blood of the cross and therefore Moses was under the New Covenant at the time he was also under the Old Covenant?

Doesn't it make more sense, and isn't it more straightforward to say that the blood of Christ will be the blood of the New Covenant, whenever that takes place, which is ALSO the means by which the rest of us, Jews, Gentiles, men and women of the past, men and women of the future are saved?


Are Gentiles not sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ?


Yes, we Gentiles are sanctified by the blood of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But does that condition, all by itself, place us under the New Covenant?


So, throughout the preceding two chapters we clearly see that the first covenant is the old covenant and refers to the sacrifice of calves and goats. The second and new covenant refers to the covenant instituted by Christ's sacrifice. So, by knowing what is talked about in Hebrews 8 and 9 regarding the first and second covenants, it establishes the context and should make it obvious that Hebrews 10:9-10 is referring to the first and second covenants and not the first and second bodies as you are trying to claim.


Theologically speaking, I suppose there is not much difference between the first and second covenant and the first and second body. But I was making an exegetical point, not a theological one.

Benaiah
Jan 27th 2009, 08:47 PM
Okay, since we are in Hebrews, let me answer your objection from Hebrews. In Hebrews 11, Paul points out that God was saving individuals all through history -- all the way from Abel to Enoch to Noah to Moses and on down the line. In many cases, we have no Biblical evidence that these people had a clue about Jesus or the cross. In fact, Paul says that God granted his favor to those who "believe that God exists and that he rewards those who seek him." which is a faith that contains a scant amount of content.

We have discussions all the time centered on the question of how God saves those who were born before Jesus came. Moses, and David, and Noah, and men like that, were saved without ever knowing that Jesus was the Messiah and that he died on a cross to save us from our sins. Some of them knew that God would provide a messiah. And some of them knew that God would provide a means to salvation that had nothing at all to do with animal sacrifices. But none of them knew that a man named Jesus would be the one. And none of them knew that he would die on a cross to save us from our sins.



OT saints are saved the same way that NT saints are, by grace thru faith.

While OT saints id not know the name of the messiah s Jesus, they knew that God had promised a redeemer, the promise was given in the garden.
As Hebrews 11 tells us, they died in Faith, and their faith was in the promises of God.

As Job ( who lived before Moses and the Law) said,


Job 19:25 For I know that my Redeemer lives, And He shall stand at last on the earth;
Job 19:26 And after my skin is destroyed, this I know, That in my flesh I shall see God,
Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, And my eyes shall behold, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!


Here Job clearly expresses both salvation ( redemption ) and resurrection.



Now, when we say all this, are we also saying that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Moses, David, and etc. were under the New Covenant? Are we saying that Moses was saved by the blood of the cross and therefore Moses was under the New Covenant at the time he was also under the Old Covenant?


While they did not live or die under the New covenant, but they are part of it once it was established and in force.


Heb 11:40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us.

OT saints who died in faith and NT saints are ONE people, who will be made perfect TOGETHER.


Yes, we Gentiles are sanctified by the blood of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But does that condition, all by itself, place us under the New Covenant?


The indwelling of the Holy Spirit was the promise of the new covenant, so how do believers have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit without he New covenant.?

pinky
Jan 27th 2009, 09:19 PM
Okay, since we are in Hebrews, let me answer your objection from Hebrews. In Hebrews 11, Paul points out that God was saving individuals all through history -- all the way from Abel to Enoch to Noah to Moses and on down the line. In many cases, we have no Biblical evidence that these people had a clue about Jesus or the cross.


Jhn 5:46 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=5&v=46&t=KJV#46)For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.


Jhn 1:45 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=1&v=45&t=KJV#45)Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.


Jhn 5:46 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=5&v=46&t=KJV#46)For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.


Gal 3:8 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gal&c=3&v=8&t=KJV#8)And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.

BroRog
Jan 27th 2009, 11:41 PM
While they did not live or die under the New covenant, but they are part of it once it was established and in force.

Okay, so what you just said about the men of old, I can say about the men (or women) living today. The same logic applies. We will be part of it once it is established too. And if this is true, then the fact that Jesus said his blood is the blood of the New Covenant, doesn't refute the idea that the New Covenant is future to us.


The indwelling of the Holy Spirit was the promise of the new covenant, so how do believers have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit without he New covenant.?

It's an act of God's grace, freely given to those of faith. The account of Cornelius and Peter's dialog with the Jerusalem council, and then the subsequent meeting of Paul with the Jerusalem council brought out the fact that God was saving Gentiles apart from joining themselves to Israel.

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 05:19 AM
Okay, so what you just said about the men of old, I can say about the men (or women) living today. The same logic applies. We will be part of it once it is established too. And if this is true, then the fact that Jesus said his blood is the blood of the New Covenant, doesn't refute the idea that the New Covenant is future to us.


Of course you can say it, but I notice that you offer no scriptural support for your claim.



It's an act of God's grace, freely given to those of faith. The account of Cornelius and Peter's dialog with the Jerusalem council, and then the subsequent meeting of Paul with the Jerusalem council brought out the fact that God was saving Gentiles apart from joining themselves to Israel.

What Peter pointed out was that the Gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit just as the Jews had. And it was happening without them being circumcised or following the law of moses.

Peter Says,

Act 15:9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

And the truly amazing statement.

Act 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."

Notice he does not say, We believe they (Gentiles) shall be saved n he same manner as us,( Jews) instead he says, "We believe WE (Jews) shall be saved in the same manner as THEY.(Gentiles



)

BroRog
Jan 28th 2009, 02:49 PM
Of course you can say it, but I notice that you offer no scriptural support for your claim.

Really? I think half of this thread contains my scriptural support. John146 was attempting to refute my contention that God's word to Jeremiah should be taken literally. In his view, the New Covenant had already started. For evidence of this fact, he offered Jesus' statement that his blood would be the blood of the New Covenant. I attempted to show that this statement doesn't necessarily mean that the New Covenant had started already by pointing out that all believers, whether past, present, or future are saved on the basis of Christ's blood. Given this fact, it is clear to me that the cross itself wasn't the inauguration of the New Covenant. If it were, it wouldn't apply across the ages.


What Peter pointed out was that the Gentiles were receiving the Holy Spirit just as the Jews had. And it was happening without them being circumcised or following the law of moses.

Yes, exactly. Peter was making his statements at the Jerusalem council in which the open question was, "do the Gentiles need to be brought into the nation of Israel?" The answer is no.

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 03:30 PM
Really? I think half of this thread contains my scriptural support. John146 was attempting to refute my contention that God's word to Jeremiah should be taken literally. In his view, the New Covenant had already started. For evidence of this fact, he offered Jesus' statement that his blood would be the blood of the New Covenant. I attempted to show that this statement doesn't necessarily mean that the New Covenant had started already by pointing out that all believers, whether past, present, or future are saved on the basis of Christ's blood. Given this fact, it is clear to me that the cross itself wasn't the inauguration of the New Covenant. If it were, it wouldn't apply across the ages.


Mat 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 10:43 "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Clearly the New Covenant went into effect at the death f Christ, Just as scripture says, that a testament becomes effective upon the death of the testator.

Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Scripture could not be more clear, Christ's death Brought the New covenant into force. otherwise there would be no remission of Sins.


Yes, exactly. Peter was making his statements at the Jerusalem council in which the open question was, "do the Gentiles need to be brought into the nation of Israel?" The answer is no. Today 12:19 AM

You are missing the point entirely, if the Gentiles were not becoming part of Israel there would have been no need for the debate, the requirement of circumcision and keeping the law of moses would not have been an issue.

John146
Jan 28th 2009, 04:05 PM
Okay, since we are in Hebrews, let me answer your objection from Hebrews. In Hebrews 11, Paul points out that God was saving individuals all through history -- all the way from Abel to Enoch to Noah to Moses and on down the line. In many cases, we have no Biblical evidence that these people had a clue about Jesus or the cross. In fact, Paul says that God granted his favor to those who "believe that God exists and that he rewards those who seek him." which is a faith that contains a scant amount of content.

We have discussions all the time centered on the question of how God saves those who were born before Jesus came. Moses, and David, and Noah, and men like that, were saved without ever knowing that Jesus was the Messiah and that he died on a cross to save us from our sins. Some of them knew that God would provide a messiah. And some of them knew that God would provide a means to salvation that had nothing at all to do with animal sacrifices. But none of them knew that a man named Jesus would be the one. And none of them knew that he would die on a cross to save us from our sins.

But we say, these men were saved because the effects of the cross go backward in time and become the basis on which the men of old were saved. We say that faith has always been the basis of God's justification and that the cross has always been God's plan to provide us with forgiveness of our sins. The effects of the cross apply backward in time to the men of old and they apply forward in time to us. We are all saved because of what Jesus did on the cross.

Now, when we say all this, are we also saying that Abel, Enoch, Noah, Moses, David, and etc. were under the New Covenant? Are we saying that Moses was saved by the blood of the cross and therefore Moses was under the New Covenant at the time he was also under the Old Covenant?

Doesn't it make more sense, and isn't it more straightforward to say that the blood of Christ will be the blood of the New Covenant, whenever that takes place,What do you mean by His blood "will be the blood of the New Covenant"? It IS the blood of the New Covenant as He said Himself.


which is ALSO the means by which the rest of us, Jews, Gentiles, men and women of the past, men and women of the future are saved? Of course it's the means by which we are all saved.


Yes, we Gentiles are sanctified by the blood of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But does that condition, all by itself, place us under the New Covenant? Yes, it does!


Theologically speaking, I suppose there is not much difference between the first and second covenant and the first and second body. But I was making an exegetical point, not a theological one.Whatever that means. :rolleyes: Are you acknowledging that Hebrews 10:9-10 is speaking of the first (old) and second (new) covenants then?

John146
Jan 28th 2009, 04:09 PM
We understand from his introduction to the subject and his statement in 9:6 that the first Israel is the Israel that will exist when God carries out his obligation to them as a people. The second Israel indicates the children of Jacob, taken as a whole. Paul is saying, "When God decides to fulfill his obligation to the nation of Israel, that nation will not include each and every child that comes out of Jacob. Rather, when the time comes, the children of Jacob in the natural sense will also be children of Abraham in the spiritual sense and they will be of God's own choosing."

That's how I understand it. It doesn't say "not all of them will be Israel who are of Israel". It says "they are not all Israel who are of Israel". That's present tense. You have no basis for applying his words only to the future.

John146
Jan 28th 2009, 04:13 PM
Okay, so what you just said about the men of old, I can say about the men (or women) living today. The same logic applies. We will be part of it once it is established too. And if this is true, then the fact that Jesus said his blood is the blood of the New Covenant, doesn't refute the idea that the New Covenant is future to us.Huh??? He died and rose again around 2,000 years ago. The New Covenant was established right then and there.

Teke
Jan 28th 2009, 04:44 PM
Really? I think half of this thread contains my scriptural support. John146 was attempting to refute my contention that God's word to Jeremiah should be taken literally. In his view, the New Covenant had already started. For evidence of this fact, he offered Jesus' statement that his blood would be the blood of the New Covenant. I attempted to show that this statement doesn't necessarily mean that the New Covenant had started already by pointing out that all believers, whether past, present, or future are saved on the basis of Christ's blood. Given this fact, it is clear to me that the cross itself wasn't the inauguration of the New Covenant. If it were, it wouldn't apply across the ages.

I am awe struck that you believe this.:eek:

You have to understand the office of the priest to understand the sacrifice of The High Priest. I am sure that the Hebrews readers understood this to understand what Paul has explained to them pertaining to that in relation to Jesus and His work as High Priest.

I'm going to post what I've written on my blog to try and further explain for you. Keep in mind that Jesus is the Son of God, one of the holy Trinity, and therefore His sacrifice is eternal as God is eternal (past, present future-covers all ages)



In line with the teachings of Christ as our great High Priest in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ's Immolation on the Cross was sacrificial (the office of a priest), latreutic (worshipful), and soterial (verse 2:3): Our Savior's human life itself constituted a victory over the world (2:8), death, (2:9, 14), and the devil (2:14).

Jesus's Suffering on the Cross, was especially soterial (2:10), but would have no value as Immolation (ceremonial mactation) unless Anaphora or Oblation (offering) followed as the point of sacrificing. (The Book of Hebrews uses anaphérein "offer"--just as the Orthodox still do.) Christians view our Savior's Suffering (Passion) and Death as a propitiating or atoning Immolation. But the Crucifixion, perfect in Itself, was not all there was to Christ's humiliation. Of His Incarnation, Hebrew 2:17 says: ". . . it was needful for Him to become like [his] brothers in all [respects], in order that He might also become a compassionate and faithful high Priest with regard to things pertaining to God for the sake of atoning for the sins of the people." The following verse adds: "For in that He has suffered, He Himself having been tested [or tempted], He is able to give aid to those being tested [or tempted; cf. verse 15]." Subsequently, He entered His rest (4:10), a rest we are to strive to enter (4:11).

When a perfect part of creation was offered to the all-holy Trinity, a perfect act of Worship was finally achieved by humanity. We share in this by becoming one with Christ, i.e. by partaking of His uncreated, Life-giving Energies. What He did is not simply imputed to us, but we actually share in what He did by being ontological (not virtual or metaphorical) members of His Body--one with Him in true, not virtual, reality. The divine Liturgy says that Christ is both Offerer (in us) and Offered.
(Offering is the essence of Sacrifice and can be repeated; Christ's Death on the Cross, mistaken for the essence of Sacrifice by Protestants, cannot be repeated, but does not even occur in non-propitiatory sacrifices.)


His Resurrection and Ascension completed the work. The evidence on earth was the anointing of the Church at Pentecost. The new covenant is established with the Church. The Pentecost anointing points that out. So there is no confusion as to whom the new covenant pertains.

BroRog
Jan 28th 2009, 04:52 PM
Mat 26:28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Act 10:43 "To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."

Clearly the New Covenant went into effect at the death f Christ, Just as scripture says, that a testament becomes effective upon the death of the testator.

Yes, but don't you see. According to this logic, the New Covenant had been in effect since the foundation of the world.

In my view, the blood of Jesus does two things: 1. It will become the basis of the New Covenant when God makes his New Covenant with Israel in the future, and 2. it is the basis for the remission of sin for ALL who believe, whether Jew or Gentile, whether a believer from the past, present or future. This view preserves the literal fulfillment of Jeremiah 31, which hasn't happened yet.

To say that the New Covenant is already in effect, is to misread and misunderstand Jeremiah's prophecy.


Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.

Scripture could not be more clear, Christ's death Brought the New covenant into force. otherwise there would be no remission of Sins.
Yes, scripture is clear. As I pointed out, God was granting salvation to people since the foundation of the world. As Paul points out in Hebrews, Abel was saved, Enoch was saved, Noah was saved, Moses was saved, etc. Each of these men, and I assume women too, were saved without a covenant. Paul also argues in Romans 4, that God had been saving people prior to the time of Moses by faith, and that he continues to save people on that basis. And he highly stresses the fact that Abraham was saved BEFORE God made a covenant with him.


You are missing the point entirely, if the Gentiles were not becoming part of Israel there would have been no need for the debate, the requirement of circumcision and keeping the law of moses would not have been an issue.

On the contrary, the entire issue arose because men from James were saying that the Gentiles were required to become citizens of Israel, which required them to become circumcised and put themselves under Moses. The entire debate was centered on Gentile naturalization. The Jerusalem council decided that, no, Gentiles did not have to become naturalized citizens of Israel in order to be saved.

Where do you suppose the Jewish Christians got the idea that God would require a Gentile person to become a citizen of Israel in order to find salvation?

BroRog
Jan 28th 2009, 05:24 PM
I am awe struck that you believe this.:eek:

You have to understand the office of the priest to understand the sacrifice of The High Priest. I am sure that the Hebrews readers understood this to understand what Paul has explained to them pertaining to that in relation to Jesus and His work as High Priest.

I'm going to post what I've written on my blog to try and further explain for you. Keep in mind that Jesus is the Son of God, one of the holy Trinity, and therefore His sacrifice is eternal as God is eternal (past, present future-covers all ages)



His Resurrection and Ascension completed the work. The evidence on earth was the anointing of the Church at Pentecost. The new covenant is established with the Church. The Pentecost anointing points that out. So there is no confusion as to whom the new covenant pertains.

Teke, I appreciate the effort you put into your blog entry. And I see that it speaks about the soterial aspect of the cross, with which I have no disagreement. The issue here is whether God made his New Covenant with Israel at that time or not. I believe the destruction of the Temple in 70AD puts that issue to rest. Obviously, God did not make his New Covenant with Israel at that time. Rather, he sent them into exile to await the restoration of Israel.

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 05:26 PM
Yes, scripture is clear. As I pointed out, God was granting salvation to people since the foundation of the world. As Paul points out in Hebrews, Abel was saved, Enoch was saved, Noah was saved, Moses was saved, etc. Each of these men, and I assume women too, were saved without a covenant. Paul also argues in Romans 4, that God had been saving people prior to the time of Moses by faith, and that he continues to save people on that basis. And he highly stresses the fact that Abraham was saved BEFORE God made a covenant with him.
Yes, but don't you see. According to this logic, the New Covenant had been in effect since the foundation of the world.That Christ's death provided salvation for those under the Old covenant who died in faith is made abundantly clear.



Heb 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Salvation has always been by faith, But before Christ's sacrifice those who died in faith were credited by God because of their faith.

Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."


Where do you suppose the Jewish Christians got the idea that God would require a Gentile person to become a citizen of Israel in order to find salvation?By virtue of the fact that to receive the promises of the covenant you had to be one of the covenant people.

Like many you adhere to a doctrine that disenfranchises every Jew that followed Christ,( and even Christ himself) in this view any Jew who accepted Christ is no longer of Israel,they become a part of the supposedly "Gentile" "Church".

But he "Church" is founded upon Christ the chief cornerstone, nd the prophets and Apostles, ( All Jews) and was exclusively Jewish for over a decade, before they understood that Gentiles were to be included as well.

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 05:33 PM
To say that the New Covenant is already in effect, is to misread and misunderstand Jeremiah's prophecy. So Judaism says, The very fact that you give the prophecy of Jeremiah the same interpretation that those who rejected and STILL reject Christ as well as rejecting the need for Blood for atonement, or that they need a Savior at all ought to give you pause, but apparently it does not.

Is Prophecy Spiritual? if so, then how are we to understand it? Are we not told in Scripture?


1Co 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Teke
Jan 28th 2009, 05:36 PM
Teke, I appreciate the effort you put into your blog entry. And I see that it speaks about the soterial aspect of the cross, with which I have no disagreement. The issue here is whether God made his New Covenant with Israel at that time or not. I believe the destruction of the Temple in 70AD puts that issue to rest. Obviously, God did not make his New Covenant with Israel at that time. Rather, he sent them into exile to await the restoration of Israel.

So your saying Jesus doesn't represent Israel. He's just some abstract concept to your Jeremiah prophecy.

Show me where Jesus sent Israel into exile.

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 05:42 PM
So your saying Jesus doesn't represent Israel. He's just some abstract concept to your Jeremiah prophecy.

Show me where Jesus sent Israel into exile.

Jesus said the kingdom would be taken from them, (Israel) But a large part of Christianity apparently believes that it was taken from Jesus instead. And the rebels kept it.

BroRog
Jan 28th 2009, 06:24 PM
That Christ's death provided salvation for those under the Old covenant who died in faith is made abundantly clear.

Agreed. So then, Christ's death provided salvation to those under the Old Covenant, while they were under the Old Covenant. And so, if they were under the Old Covenant, they were not under the New Covenant when provision was made for their sins.

That is to say, the blood of the covenant became efficacious for everyone down through history, even while the New Covenant had not been in affect yet.


Salvation has always been by faith, But before Christ's sacrifice those who died in faith were credited by God because of their faith.


And After? Isn't Paul's point to say that God is granting salvation to us today because he set a precedent in Abraham before Abraham was circumcised? I don't see how this point is an argument for the assertion that the New Covenant has to be in effect for God to grant us forgiveness of sins. God was granting forgiveness of sins prior to the cross.


By virtue of the fact that to receive the promises of the covenant you had to be one of the covenant people.

Yes, of course. :) These men did not make up this idea, that Gentiles become part of the covenant people, out of whole cloth. They knew the scriptures that said God would make a New Covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. And so it stands to reason that membership in one of those houses would be a prerequisite to salvation.

Nonetheless, it was God himself who trained the Apostles to accept the idea that membership into one of those houses was NOT a prerequisite to gaining his salvation. And Paul set out to preach that God was granting salvation apart from the Mosaic Law.

This is the background into which Paul makes his apology for God keeping his national obligation to his kinsmen of the flesh Israel.


Like many you adhere to a doctrine that disenfranchises every Jew that followed Christ,( and even Christ himself) in this view any Jew who accepted Christ is no longer of Israel,they become a part of the supposedly "Gentile" "Church".

I don't think I am doing that. In my view, Jesus, The Twelve, His mother, the women at the tomb, Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, and the other believing Jews are just as much members of Israel as the Sanhedrin who put Jesus to death. Its all the same country/nation. And as Paul says, some of them are a remnant of believers and some are not.

At the appropriate time, God will bring the nation out of exile, and each citizen of that nation living then will come to belief. That is, where as in Paul's day only a fraction of the nation believed in Jesus, when the time comes, the entire nation will become believers.

No one, in my view, is being disenfranchised. No Jew living in Israel will lose his or her citizenship.

As I see it, the church is a much larger group of people, who come from all walks of life, from every nationality, and every tongue, and every race, and etc. The Israel of the promise, which consists entirely of Jewish believers, will be a part of the church also. The two groups aren't numerically identical. The church is much bigger and contains more people than the Israel of the promise. Whereas Peter and Paul, for example, were citizens of Israel and members of the church, Titus was not a citizen of Israel but he was a member of the church.


But the "Church" is founded upon Christ the chief cornerstone, and the prophets and Apostles, ( All Jews) and was exclusively Jewish for over a decade, before they understood that Gentiles were to be included as well.


Yes. I totally agree that the church is founded upon Christ. And I understand that the church was exclusively Jewish for many years. But God's word to Peter and Paul was that the church could be much bigger and include people from every land. All of this, though, doesn't negate the fact that God is going to deal with a nation we will call Israel at a time yet in our future.

SunnyE
Jan 28th 2009, 06:26 PM
Think practically. When you make a will (covenant) nobody can change it until you change it yourself. I know an old man that changed his will regularly, depending who was important to him at the time.

God made a covenant with his people, and throughout the OT and NT it regularly says that God had made it Better. The covenant was for HIS people. It had been improved not just for his favorite nation of the OT but to include everyone.

Already in Genesis 49, 10-12 God tells his people that they would be His (my words now) UNTIL He comes riding on the donkey - a clear reference to Jesus.

The OT was very descriptive about the NEW things to come
1- a new day
2- a New Jerusalem
and many more

timmyb
Jan 28th 2009, 06:27 PM
The verse that says that there is no Jew or Gentile... that's true if they are in Christ... they are only one in Christ... Christ is the reconciliation of the world... Jews who have accepted Christ and Gentiles who have accepted Christ are one and the same in Christ... but also we need to realize that God has a special desire to see Israel saved like Paul said in Romans 9... Romans 9:6 says that not all who are who are born into Israel are true Israel which is the Jews who have accepted Christ along with the Gentiles who have been grafted in to the promises...

Paul is very clear about the reality that God wants to see all Israel saved and that he has predestined that nation to be his... Romans 11:26 is the prophecy that all Israel will be saved and God will have what he wants...

God's issue with Israel is not an issue of salvation in that just because they are Jews makes them saved, it's a salvation issue in that God REALLY REALLY wants them saved according to the righteousness of Christ... God's covenant with Israel is that Israel will accept God on HIS terms by accepting Christ before the end... and we as Gentiles have a responsibility and a mandate to call Israel to their fullness by Praying for them, preaching the gospel to them, and by provoking them to jealousy

BroRog
Jan 28th 2009, 06:31 PM
So Judaism says, The very fact that you give the prophecy of Jeremiah the same interpretation that those who rejected and STILL reject Christ as well as rejecting the need for Blood for atonement, or that they need a Savior at all ought to give you pause, but apparently it does not.

It doesn't give me pause because the good guys also believed it and never thought otherwise. If I am right, Paul felt the need to give a defense for why we should not think that God has abandoned the literal fulfillment of Jeremiah 31.

[/quote]Is Prophecy Spiritual? if so, then how are we to understand it? Are we not told in Scripture?[/quote]

Did Jesus not literally come into Jerusalem riding on a donkey? I'm not sure if you want to say that prophecy never makes predictions of actual events.

BroRog
Jan 28th 2009, 06:34 PM
So your saying Jesus doesn't represent Israel. He's just some abstract concept to your Jeremiah prophecy.

Show me where Jesus sent Israel into exile.

I don't remember saying that Jesus sent Israel into exile. He predicted they would.

SunnyE
Jan 28th 2009, 06:43 PM
timmyB

Is it really difficult for you to understand Galatians 3, 29.

It is not by the flesh but by FAITH that anyone is considered
a child of Abraham. In other words only if you are in Christ
do you have any connection to Abraham. Yes there will come
a short time where those of the Flesh will be "remembered"
for Abraham's sake but the promises or covenant is for
those that believe in Christ.

BroRog
Jan 28th 2009, 06:46 PM
Think practically. When you make a will (covenant) nobody can change it until you change it yourself. I know an old man that changed his will regularly, depending who was important to him at the time.

God made a covenant with his people, and throughout the OT and NT it regularly says that God had made it Better. The covenant was for HIS people. It had been improved not just for his favorite nation of the OT but to include everyone.

Already in Genesis 49, 10-12 God tells his people that they would be His (my words now) UNTIL He comes riding on the donkey - a clear reference to Jesus.

The OT was very descriptive about the NEW things to come
1- a new day
2- a New Jerusalem
and many more


The interesting thing about making a will is the fact that I must put my trust in my survivors, and ultimately in God, to carry out my wishes after I'm dead. Another way of putting it is this. I must project my faith out beyond my own lifetime when I make out a will. Obviously I can't enforce my wishes if I'm dead and buried in the ground. And I'm not around for anyone to ask me what I actually want to happen.

We can see this in Abraham's case when God made a covenant with Abraham concerning his offspring. God promised to bring Abraham's children out of Egypt after 400 years. And in order for Abraham to accept this from God, he had to project his faith out past his lifetime. He wasn't going to be around to see if God kept his obligation.

In a sense, that is our experience too. When I die I must believe that God will raise me from the dead at the appropriate time. And just like a man who makes out a will, I must trust that God will execute my wish to be resurrected and saved. It's one thing to put my trust in someone while I am alive to monitor what happens. It's another thing to put my trust in someone to do something for me after I'm dead.

timmyb
Jan 28th 2009, 06:50 PM
timmyB

Is it really difficult for you to understand Galatians 3, 29.

It is not by the flesh but by FAITH that anyone is considered
a child of Abraham. In other words only if you are in Christ
do you have any connection to Abraham. Yes there will come
a short time where those of the Flesh will be "remembered"
for Abraham's sake but the promises or covenant is for
those that believe in Christ.

i have not gone so far as to insult anyone's intelligence... i would respectfully ask you not to do the same to me...

I understand that verse completely... and it is by faith that one can be called a true child of Abraham... I'm not questioning what makes one a child of Abraham or to be saved... Israel is an issue of God's heart to see them saved... Israel is not saved by flesh but by faith as the verse you posted above says... but the reality is that God's issue with Israel is his INTENSE DESIRE to see them saved because of his covenant with Abraham...

Teke
Jan 28th 2009, 06:54 PM
I don't remember saying that Jesus sent Israel into exile. He predicted they would.


Obviously, God did not make his New Covenant with Israel at that time. Rather, he sent them into exile to await the restoration of Israel.

Jesus is God. Above you said, "he", which I assumed you meant Jesus as "He" is God with them at the time.

So what do you mean? Jesus, who is also Israel, only made a covenant with the Gentiles? Or He made one with the Gentiles for now, and will later make another one for the Jews?

Teke
Jan 28th 2009, 06:58 PM
Israel is not saved by flesh but by faith as the verse you posted above says... but the reality is that God's issue with Israel is his INTENSE DESIRE to see them saved because of his covenant with Abraham...

Now we go back to the beginning of this circle. Why does God only want one of Abraham's grandsons "saved"? All of Abrahams flesh born children (8 in all) became nations. So why would God only want to save one of those nations, the one being his grandsons children?

SunnyE
Jan 28th 2009, 07:00 PM
and to finish your sentence

God's issue with Israel is his INTENSE DESIRE to see them saved because of his covenant with Abraham ... which is fulfilled when those in Israel accept Christ (His Seed).

Teke
Jan 28th 2009, 07:03 PM
There is also the issue of the nation of Israel being a priesthood nation. And according to the law, the priesthood was to have no inheritance in the land.

This subject raises more questions than it solves.

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 08:33 PM
Agreed. So then, Christ's death provided salvation to those under the Old Covenant, while they were under the Old Covenant. And so, if they were under the Old Covenant, they were not under the New Covenant when provision was made for their sins.

That is to say, the blood of the covenant became efficacious for everyone down through history, even while the New Covenant had not been in affect yet.
Provision for sin was made before the foundation of the World. That provision became an effective reality with Christ sacrifice. Those who died in faith, not having received the promise are included in that provision.


And After? Isn't Paul's point to say that God is granting salvation to us today because he set a precedent in Abraham before Abraham was circumcised? I don't see how this point is an argument for the assertion that the New Covenant has to be in effect for God to grant us forgiveness of sins. God was granting forgiveness of sins prior to the cross.Paul's point is that circumcision of the flesh is not required for salvation. Abraham was DECLARED righteous by God BEFORE he was circumcised. Because of his faith, not because of his circumcision, that is Paul's point.


Yes, of course. :) These men did not make up this idea, that Gentiles become part of the covenant people, out of whole cloth. They knew the scriptures that said God would make a New Covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. And so it stands to reason that membership in one of those houses would be a prerequisite to salvation.

Nonetheless, it was God himself who trained the Apostles to accept the idea that membership into one of those houses was NOT a prerequisite to gaining his salvation. And Paul set out to preach that God was granting salvation apart from the Mosaic Law.

This is the background into which Paul makes his apology for God keeping his national obligation to his kinsmen of the flesh Israel.God does not have two plans or two methods of salvation, nor does he have two covenant people. He has ONE plan of salvation, and one covenant people. and they are ONE people whether they are Jew or Gentile.

And salvation is apart from the Mosaic law,( Jews included) this is precisely what peter was saying when he said.


Act 15:11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
In deciding the issue, James speaking for the council points to the Prophecy of Amos.


Act 15:14 "Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
Act 15:15 "And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
Act 15:16 'After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
What s the connection with the Tabernacle of David? What did they know about the Tabernacle of David that the average Christian today does not?

The Answer is that the Tabernacle of David had NOTHING to do with the Mosaic law, None of the rituals or observances required under the Mosaic law were performed there, they were not even any priests present to perform them, only Levites, who ministered to God day and night before the Ark with praise and worship that was established by David.

They understood then that the Gentiles inclusion into the commonwealth of Israel was apart from the Law of Moses, and PEter himself made it clear that this was true not only of Gentiles,, but Jews as well.





At the appropriate time, God will bring the nation out of exile, and each citizen of that nation living then will come to belief. That is, where as in Paul's day only a fraction of the nation believed in Jesus, when the time comes, the entire nation will become believers.That started 2000 years ago, why do you think in Acts it makes a point that the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost were,


Act 2:5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.
As I see it, the church is a much larger group of people, who come from all walks of life, from every nationality, and every tongue, and every race, and etc.Which is exactly what the coming of the Messiah, and the New Covenant was to bring about.


The Israel of the promise, which consists entirely of Jewish believersThe Israel of the Promise is Christ himself, and those in Christ who are fellow heirs with him, no one else qualifies, regardless of birth or nationality.

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 08:45 PM
Did Jesus not literally come into Jerusalem riding on a donkey? I'm not sure if you want to say that prophecy never makes predictions of actual events.

Here you are using the popular and incorrect view of "Spiritual" you think it means not literal or insubstantial. But in scripture it is shown in Paul telling us the difference between the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law.

The Spirit of the law is what the real intent of the law is. ( what the law means) the same is true of Prophecy.

Prophecy said that Elijah would come before the Messiah, Did Elijah literally come? or do you disbelieve even Jesus when he said that John the baptist was the Elijah who was to come?


Mat 17:12 "But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. Likewise the Son of Man is also about to suffer at their hands."
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 08:51 PM
but the reality is that God's issue with Israel is his INTENSE DESIRE to see them saved because of his covenant with Abraham...

The reality is, that God's covenant with Abraham is to his seed ( singular) not to his seeds (Plural). And the singular seed of Abraham to whom the promises to Abraham pertain is Christ.


Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ.


Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

John146
Jan 28th 2009, 09:15 PM
i have not gone so far as to insult anyone's intelligence... i would respectfully ask you not to do the same to me...

I understand that verse completely... and it is by faith that one can be called a true child of Abraham... I'm not questioning what makes one a child of Abraham or to be saved... Israel is an issue of God's heart to see them saved... Israel is not saved by flesh but by faith as the verse you posted above says... but the reality is that God's issue with Israel is his INTENSE DESIRE to see them saved because of his covenant with Abraham...But His covenant with Abraham had to do with all people who believe in Christ, as Galatians 3:26-29 shows. That's what I believe you are missing. Don't you know that God is not a respecter of persons? You are acting as if He wants Israelites to be saved more than people from any other nation, but if that was the case it would make Him a respecter of persons, which He is not.

Vhayes
Jan 28th 2009, 09:20 PM
The reality is, that God's covenant with Abraham is to his seed ( singular) not to his seeds (Plural). And the singular seed of Abraham to whom the promises to Abraham pertain is Christ.
Tries to give you reps for this but I have to spread them around a bit. Great post!
V

Benaiah
Jan 28th 2009, 10:07 PM
But His covenant with Abraham had to do with all people who believe in Christ, as Galatians 3:26-29 shows. That's what I believe you are missing. Don't you know that God is not a respecter of persons? You are acting as if He wants Israelites to be saved more than people from any other nation, but if that was the case it would make Him a respecter of persons, which He is not.

indeed, last time I checked John 3:16 still said. "For God so loved the WORLD......"

BroRog
Jan 29th 2009, 02:28 AM
Provision for sin was made before the foundation of the World. That provision became an effective reality with Christ sacrifice. Those who died in faith, not having received the promise are included in that provision.

I understand. But how is this fact a rebuttal of the idea that Christ has saved us without inaugurating the New Covenant? If Christ's blood became efficacious for those who died in faith, and if those who died in faith were not under the New Covenant, then it remains a possibility that it was also efficacious for us today apart from the New Covenant.


Paul's point is that circumcision of the flesh is not required for salvation. Abraham was DECLARED righteous by God BEFORE he was circumcised. Because of his faith, not because of his circumcision, that is Paul's point.

Of course. And again, God is granting salvation to Abraham apart from the New Covenant. So why not us?

Remember we are on this line of questioning because it was asserted earlier that the blood of Christ inaugurated the New Covenant AND if the New Covenant was NOT inaugurated at the cross, then we are not saved. I'm suggesting that we ARE saved, not on the basis of being involved in a covenant, but because God is applying Christ's blood to us on the same basis he applied it to those who died in faith.


God does not have two plans or two methods of salvation, nor does he have two covenant people. He has ONE plan of salvation, and one covenant people. and they are ONE people whether they are Jew or Gentile.

You made three statements. I agree with the first two and disagree with the third. I find no evidence that Gentiles are made a part of a covenant.


The Answer is that the Tabernacle of David had NOTHING to do with the Mosaic law, None of the rituals or observances required under the Mosaic law were performed there, they were not even any priests present to perform them, only Levites, who ministered to God day and night before the Ark with praise and worship that was established by David.

Now we have strayed far from the question at hand. The topic at hand concerns the identity of Israel and God's plan to make a New Covenant with Israel. While we can certainly talk about this passage from Acts, it has no bearing on the issue except to say that Gentiles were NOT required to become citizens of Israel.


They understood then that the Gentiles inclusion into the commonwealth of Israel was apart from the Law of Moses, and Peter himself made it clear that this was true not only of Gentiles, but Jews as well.

I believe this event from Acts says exactly the opposite. The ruling that Gentiles did NOT have to get circumcised frees them from the necessity of being included in the commonwealth of Israel. If the Apostles ruled that the Gentiles must enter the commonwealth of Israel, they would have required Gentile men to get circumcised.


That started 2000 years ago, why do you think in Acts it makes a point that the Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost were,

While it's true that folks were from every nation, this doesn't mean they were citizens of those countries. Many sons of Jacob lived outside the country. We know them as the diaspora -- people ethnically related to Jacob living outside the country. The reason these folks were in Jerusalem is because they were required by law to make a trip to Jerusalem to celebrate certain feasts.

By the way, this idea that Christ is Israel makes no sense out of Paul's arguments in Romans.

Benaiah
Jan 29th 2009, 03:25 AM
Of course. And again, God is granting salvation to Abraham apart from the New Covenant. So why not us?


God did NOT grant Abraham salvation apart from the New covenant, He credited him with righteousness because of his faith, Which means he would be included under the new covenant along with all the other OT saints who dies in faith.

We ARE redeemed, which is only possible under the New covenant, because the law could NOT save, nor could the blood of Bulls and goats. (Hebrews 10:4)


You made three statements. I agree with the first two and disagree with the third. I find no evidence that Gentiles are made a part of a covenant.


If gentiles are not part of the covenant people then there is no salvation for them. And scripture clearly states they are indeed part of the covenant people, and they got there the same way the believing Jews did, thru faith.


Now we have strayed far from the question at hand. The topic at hand concerns the identity of Israel and God's plan to make a New Covenant with Israel. While we can certainly talk about this passage from Acts, it has no bearing on the issue except to say that Gentiles were NOT required to become citizens of Israel.


They were not required to become citizens of National, physical Israel, which itself was comprised of believers and unbelievers, as Paul said, not all who are of Israel are Israel. Israel in God's eyes are the faithful, the believers.


I believe this event from Acts says exactly the opposite. The ruling that Gentiles did NOT have to get circumcised frees them from the necessity of being included in the commonwealth of Israel. If the Apostles ruled that the Gentiles must enter the commonwealth of Israel, they would have required Gentile men to get circumcised.

The Apostles recognized that God had already cast his vote, by bringing Gentiles to salvation and giving them the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This was Peters point,


Act 15:10 "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?


If the issue was as you claim, then this argument makes no sense, in fact there would have been no debate, the issue would have been dismissed out of hand as a non issue if the Gentiles were not joining Israel.

What yo are actually suggesting is that God has permitted a non covenant people to be joined with His covenant people. And that is absolutely contrary to scripture.


While it's true that folks were from every nation, this doesn't mean they were citizens of those countries. Many sons of Jacob lived outside the country. We know them as the diaspora -- people ethnically related to Jacob living outside the country. The reason these folks were in Jerusalem is because they were required by law to make a trip to Jerusalem to celebrate certain feasts.

That was actually my point. they were Jews who lived in these other countries, not in Israel.


By the way, this idea that Christ is Israel makes no sense out of Paul's arguments in Romans.

Jesus did not say, "I am a vine and yo are the branches", He said, "I am the TRUE vine" and Jew would have known immediately known what his reference was to. Israel, From the passages in the OT that refer to Israel as a Vine planted by the Lord.

Why do you think the Gospels go to such lengths to portray Christ as the New Moses? The children being killed, 40 days in Isolation, etc, why do you think that Jesus had 12 disciples, whom He says will sit on twelve thrones judging the Tribes of Israel?

Christ represents the perfect Israel, the one God always intended, just as He as the last Adam represents the perfect man.

Benaiah
Jan 29th 2009, 05:05 AM
How hard s it really to figure out what the Olive tree is in Romans?

1. it was a cultivated tree, not a wild one.

2. it represented The Jewish people exclusively, until SOME branches were broken off because of unbelief, at which point Gentiles, represented as branches from a wild olive tree are grafted in with the natural branches which remained, (Obviously Jewish believers.)

3. IF the natural branches that were broken off do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted back in to their own tree.

How can anyone ignore the obvious conclusion that the tree represents the covenant people, Israel.

In Jeremiah God calls Israel, "green olive tree"

Jer 11:16 The LORD called your name, Green Olive Tree, Lovely and of Good Fruit. With the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, And its branches are broken.

and it was not a wild tree it was a cultivated one, planted by the Lord.

Jer 11:17 "For the LORD of hosts, who planted you, has pronounced doom against you for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke Me to anger in offering incense to Baal.

John146
Jan 29th 2009, 02:44 PM
How hard s it really to figure out what the Olive tree is in Romans?

1. it was a cultivated tree, not a wild one.

2. it represented The Jewish people exclusively, until SOME branches were broken off because of unbelief, at which point Gentiles, represented as branches from a wild olive tree are grafted in with the natural branches which remained, (Obviously Jewish believers.)

3. IF the natural branches that were broken off do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted back in to their own tree.

How can anyone ignore the obvious conclusion that the tree represents the covenant people, Israel.

In Jeremiah God calls Israel, "green olive tree"

Jer 11:16 The LORD called your name, Green Olive Tree, Lovely and of Good Fruit. With the noise of a great tumult He has kindled fire on it, And its branches are broken.

and it was not a wild tree it was a cultivated one, planted by the Lord.

Jer 11:17 "For the LORD of hosts, who planted you, has pronounced doom against you for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke Me to anger in offering incense to Baal.Exactly. They are not all Israel who are of Israel. They are not all grafted in the olive tree who are of Israelite descent. Some were cut off due to unbelief. How is one grafted in? As a result of faith. It all centers around whether one has faith in Christ or not and has nothing to do with race or nationality. The church is the Israel of God and the good olive tree.

BroRog
Jan 29th 2009, 05:42 PM
God did NOT grant Abraham salvation apart from the New covenant, He credited him with righteousness because of his faith, Which means he would be included under the new covenant along with all the other OT saints who dies in faith.

I don't see where Paul makes the argument you want to make. In his argument for Gentile inclusion, he merely says Gentiles are saved by faith just as Abraham was. If being a part of the New Covenant was essential to salvation, why didn't he say so? Perhaps he didn't mention it because it wasn't something Gentiles must do.


If gentiles are not part of the covenant people then there is no salvation for them.

That's exactly what the Judaizers were saying. I don't think you are a Judaizer are you?


They were not required to become citizens of National, physical Israel, which itself was comprised of believers and unbelievers, as Paul said, not all who are of Israel are Israel. Israel in God's eyes are the faithful, the believers.

Maybe you don't understand the contention issue in Acts. When the Judaizers ran around behind Paul telling the Gentiles that they had to be circumcised and put themselves under the Law of Moses, they were saying that they had to become part of the covenant people, which will place them into one of the two houses, and make them citizens of Israel. The decision at the Jerusalem council was, no, a Gentile did not have to become part of the covenant people.

That's the whole point of making physical circumcision a prerequisite for salvation. The Judaizer's contention was that the Gentiles had to become part of the covenant people to be saved. Peter, James and Paul disagreed. Contrary to what the Judaizers were saying, the Apostles ruled that the Gentiles were not required to become part of the covenant people.

The issue of a change in covenant never came up. Luke recorded nothing concerning a change in covenant. When Paul recounted this event in Galatians he never mentioned a change in covenant. In fact, in Galatians Paul argues that our salvation is based on a promise God made to Abraham that predates both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.


The Apostles recognized that God had already cast his vote, by bringing Gentiles to salvation and giving them the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This was Peters point,

Yes, by giving the Gentiles the Spirit God was testifying to Peter that he was granting his salvation without requiring that the Gentiles become a part of the covenant people.


If the issue was as you claim, then this argument makes no sense, in fact there would have been no debate, the issue would have been dismissed out of hand as a non issue if the Gentiles were not joining Israel.

Again, you don't seem to understand that the Judaizers were pressuring the Gentiles to become citizens of Israel, which is another way of saying, they pressured them into entering the covenant people. The Jerusalem council ruled that the Gentiles did NOT have to enter the covenant people.


What yo are actually suggesting is that God has permitted a non covenant people to be joined with His covenant people. And that is absolutely contrary to scripture.


Yes. That's exactly what the scripture says as I read them. This is Paul's point in Ephesians. God is taking a covenant people, the Jews and joining them with a non-covenant people, the Gentiles into one new man in Christ.


That was actually my point. they were Jews who lived in these other countries, not in Israel.


I thought your point was that these visitors were not Israelites because they were from out of the country. What's the point of saying that Jews living outside the country were visiting their homeland?


Jesus did not say, "I am a vine and yo are the branches", He said, "I am the TRUE vine" and Jew would have known immediately known what his reference was to. Israel, From the passages in the OT that refer to Israel as a Vine planted by the Lord.


You didn't really answer the question. I don't believe in making those kinds of wild associations and I don't believe in typology. But the question is, how does your view that Jesus is Israel make sense out of Paul's argument in Romans. At one point, Paul says that Israel didn't believe God. I don't think you are saying that Jesus didn't believe God. See how your wild association leads to an absurd conclusion?


Why do you think the Gospels go to such lengths to portray Christ as the New Moses?

Actually, I don't see any place in which Christ is portrayed as the New Moses.

BroRog
Jan 29th 2009, 05:56 PM
How can anyone ignore the obvious conclusion that the tree represents the covenant people, Israel.

For some of us, your view isn't an obvious conclusion.

Your statement number two has a mistake in it.

You say, "it represented The Jewish people exclusively, until SOME branches were broken off because of unbelief . . ." This implies that the Olive tree, at one point, represented Jewish believers exclusively, until the Gentiles were grafted in.

Can you honestly defend the proposition that Israel was comprised exclusively of Jewish believers until the Gentiles were grafted in?

Teke
Jan 29th 2009, 06:35 PM
BroRog, what is your scripture reference for, "At one point, Paul says that Israel didn't believe God."

Also,
" In fact, in Galatians Paul argues that our salvation is based on a promise God made to Abraham that predates both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant."

The new covenant is the promise to Abraham fulfilled. The old covenant was made by the people called the Hebrews. Is God obligated to fulfill their promise to Him?

Emanate
Jan 29th 2009, 07:28 PM
2. it represented The Jewish people exclusively, until SOME branches were broken off because of unbelief, at which point Gentiles, represented as branches from a wild olive tree are grafted in with the natural branches which remained, (Obviously Jewish believers.)


I would say it represented more than the tribe of Judah.

BroRog
Jan 29th 2009, 07:36 PM
BroRog, what is your scripture reference for, "At one point, Paul says that Israel didn't believe God."

Romans 9:31.


Also,
" In fact, in Galatians Paul argues that our salvation is based on a promise God made to Abraham that predates both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant."


Galatians 3:17


The new covenant is the promise to Abraham fulfilled. The old covenant was made by the people called the Hebrews. Is God obligated to fulfill their promise to Him?

Nehemiah 9:17

Teke
Jan 29th 2009, 09:48 PM
Romans 9:31.

That verse doesn't say that they didn't believe God. It says they tried to establsih their righteousness by the law. IOW without faith.


Galatians 3:17

I agree the new covenant was based on the promise to Abraham and not the old covenant.


Nehemiah 9:17

Not sure what you mean by this verse. That section is part of the confession of the sins of Israel as a nation. It even states that in themselves making of theirself a nation they were returning themselves to bondage.

Even Moses never told them of any promises as a nation. But of THE promise (of God) as a people faithful to God. I believe I posted on that from Deuteronomy.

Benaiah
Jan 29th 2009, 10:39 PM
I don't see where Paul makes the argument you want to make. In his argument for Gentile inclusion, he merely says Gentiles are saved by faith just as Abraham was. If being a part of the New Covenant was essential to salvation, why didn't he say so? Perhaps he didn't mention it because it wasn't something Gentiles must do.

Here you argument s basically if that is what Paul meant why didn't he write it the way I think he should have? I have to agree with teke here, you have been spending to much time with Fenris.

:lol:


That's exactly what the Judaizers were saying. I don't think you are a Judaizer are you?

No because I do not share your view that the New covenant was not in effect and therefore Gentiles joining the covenant would have ot be physically circumcised and follow the law of moses, as they would have had to under the Old covenant.


Maybe you don't understand the contention issue in Acts. When the Judaizers ran around behind Paul telling the Gentiles that they had to be circumcised and put themselves under the Law of Moses, they were saying that they had to become part of the covenant people, which will place them into one of the two houses, and make them citizens of Israel. The decision at the Jerusalem council was, no, a Gentile did not have to become part of the covenant people.

I agree the Judaizers thought the gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the law of moses, I disagree that you think they did not think they were joining Israel.

Peter's argument is pretty self explanitory, that He believed that neither Gentiles nor Jews had to be circumcised or follow the law of moses.


That's the whole point of making physical circumcision a prerequisite for salvation. The Judaizer's contention was that the Gentiles had to become part of the covenant people to be saved. Peter, James and Paul disagreed. Contrary to what the Judaizers were saying, the Apostles ruled that the Gentiles were not required to become part of the covenant people.

The issue of a change in covenant never came up. Luke recorded nothing concerning a change in covenant. When Paul recounted this event in Galatians he never mentioned a change in covenant. In fact, in Galatians Paul argues that our salvation is based on a promise God made to Abraham that predates both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.


Claiming the issue never came up is a bit disengneous, r you simply have no knowledge of what Jews beleived. there is not a Jew alive in that day that would have believed that any Gentile or Jew could be saved unless they were part of the covenant people. "Salvation is of the Jews", does not mean that it is based on ethnic origon, it means Slavation is thru God's covenant. and his covenant People were the Jews.


Yes, by giving the Gentiles the Spirit God was testifying to Peter that he was granting his salvation without requiring that the Gentiles become a part of the covenant people.

There is not a shred of scripture to support this, and scripture that clearly states the Gentiles have joined the commonwealth of Israel has already been posted.



Again, you don't seem to understand that the Judaizers were pressuring the Gentiles to become citizens of Israel, which is another way of saying, they pressured them into entering the covenant people. The Jerusalem council ruled that the Gentiles did NOT have to enter the covenant people.


Actually the Judaizers taught they were not really part of the covenant people and therefore not saved unless they underwent circumcision and followed thelawof moses. The Jerusalem Council did not determine that Gentiles were not part of the covenant therefore they did not need to do either. that is your flawed and scripturally unsupported assertion.


You didn't really answer the question. I don't believe in making those kinds of wild associations and I don't believe in typology. But the question is, how does your view that Jesus is Israel make sense out of Paul's argument in Romans. At one point, Paul says that Israel didn't believe God. I don't think you are saying that Jesus didn't believe God. See how your wild association leads to an absurd conclusion?


From what I have seen you don't much agree with the Apostles intepretations of Scripture.


Actually, I don't see any place in which Christ is portrayed as the New Moses.

Any Jew would have imeadiately understood the connection, and would have known why. They knew full well that he messiah would be "One like unto Moses". Not only did Moses prophhecy this, the Apostles quoted t.


Act 3:22 "Moses said, 'THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you.

BroRog
Jan 30th 2009, 01:51 AM
That verse doesn't say that they didn't believe God. It says they tried to establsih their righteousness by the law. IOW without faith.

Same thing.


I agree the new covenant was based on the promise to Abraham and not the old covenant.


I guess we disagree then.


Not sure what you mean by this verse. That section is part of the confession of the sins of Israel as a nation. It even states that in themselves making of theirself a nation they were returning themselves to bondage.

I picked this obscure verse from Nehemiah to show two things. First, the concept of God's covenant faithfulness, often times translated "lovingkindness" is a common theme in the Bible. It demonstrates that God continues to be faithful to his covenant even though Israel was not. This is essentially what Nehemiah said in his prayer. We didn't keep the covenant, but you continue to keep your end of it anyway.


Even Moses never told them of any promises as a nation. But of THE promise (of God) as a people faithful to God. I believe I posted on that from Deuteronomy.

The entire Mt. Sinai Covenant is a national promise. The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 will also be a national promise.

Benaiah
Jan 30th 2009, 02:08 AM
For some of us, your view isn't an obvious conclusion.

Your statement number two has a mistake in it.

You say, "it represented The Jewish people exclusively, until SOME branches were broken off because of unbelief . . ." This implies that the Olive tree, at one point, represented Jewish believers exclusively, until the Gentiles were grafted in.

Can you honestly defend the proposition that Israel was comprised exclusively of Jewish believers until the Gentiles were grafted in?

But I did not say that at one time it represented exclusively Jewish believers now did I? I made the point that at one time it was exclusively Jewish, but some f he branches were broken off due to unbelief, the remaining branches were the faithful believing Jews.

Benaiah
Jan 30th 2009, 02:15 AM
I would say it represented more than the tribe of Judah.

Of course it did, But the tribe of Judah was not the only tribe living in Judah, Forst off you had the tribe of Benjamen and the levites, You also have the members f the other tribes of Israel who were faithful to God and prior to the fall of the northern ten tribes migrated to the cities of Judah to live.


2Ch 10:17 But Rehoboam reigned over the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah.


2Ch 11:3 "Speak to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin, saying,


2Ch 15:9 Then he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and those who dwelt with them from Ephraim, Manasseh, and Simeon, for they came over to him in great numbers from Israel when they saw that the LORD his God was with him.

2Ch 30:25 The whole assembly of Judah rejoiced, also the priests and Levites, all the assembly that came from Israel, the sojourners who came from the land of Israel, and those who dwelt in Judah.

2Ch 31:6 And the children of Israel and Judah, who dwelt in the cities of Judah, brought the tithe of oxen and sheep; also the tithe of holy things which were consecrated to the LORD their God they laid in heaps.


2Ch 34:9 When they came to Hilkiah the high priest, they delivered the money that was brought into the house of God, which the Levites who kept the doors had gathered from the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, from all the remnant of Israel, from all Judah and Benjamin, and which they had brought back to Jerusalem.

BroRog
Jan 30th 2009, 02:32 AM
Here you argument s basically if that is what Paul meant why didn't he write it the way I think he should have? I have to agree with teke here, you have been spending to much time with Fenris.

:lol:


I'm not saying its a matter of semantics. You are adding to what Paul said. It's like Paul makes point 'A', and you say he made 'A', 'B', and 'C'. In other words, you are reading into his statements more than is there.


No because I do not share your view that the New covenant was not in effect and therefore Gentiles joining the covenant would have ot be physically circumcised and follow the law of moses, as they would have had to under the Old covenant.

I think you are getting ahead of the story. In order to understand the events in Acts, we need to place ourselves in that time period. We need to understand the issues and events as those who were there understood them.

We understand from the Bible and other sources that in order for a Gentile man to become one of the covenant people, he had to perform the ritual acts of initiation: 1. the purification ceremony, 2. circumcision, and 3. Agree to obey the Law of Moses, and 4. other ritual offerings as required.

When the men from James insisted that the Gentiles do these things, they were insisting that the Gentiles attach themselves to the covenant people. They did not share your theological point of view. And neither did Peter or James. Everyone knew what it meant for a Gentile to go through the initiation rites to gain membership in the covenant people. And when the issue came up, they insisted, at the direction of the Holy Spirit that the Gentiles did NOT need to enter the covenant people. As Paul says, God was saving them apart from the Mosaic Law.


I agree the Judaizers thought the gentiles had to be circumcised and follow the law of moses, I disagree that you think they did not think they were joining Israel.

Well, we disagree then. You might want to investigate what I said above about the initiation rites required to enter the covenant people.


Peter's argument is pretty self explanitory, that He believed that neither Gentiles nor Jews had to be circumcised or follow the law of moses.

I don't know where you got this idea.


Claiming the issue never came up is a bit disengneous, r you simply have no knowledge of what Jews beleived. there is not a Jew alive in that day that would have believed that any Gentile or Jew could be saved unless they were part of the covenant people. "Salvation is of the Jews", does not mean that it is based on ethnic origon, it means Slavation is thru God's covenant. and his covenant People were the Jews.

Of course, when I say the issue never came up I mean the issue of a change of covenant was never mentioned in the many arguments the Apostles made with regard to Gentile salvation as recorded in the scriptures.

But the talk is about the events in Acts 15 in which the apostles declared that God was saving Gentiles outside the context of being a covenant people. Had they made the change of covenant the basis for this decree, Peter, Paul, or James would have articulated this and Luke would have recorded this for us to read. Since the text is silent concerning your view, I assume you are adding to the text.

It's one thing to declare, as you have, that we are all under the New Covenant now and that salvation is based on being members of that New Covenant. But when we actually go and review the texts in which the Apostles declare that God is saving Gentiles, and we find no mention that the Gentiles are included in the New Covenant, then we are right to question your assertion.


There is not a shred of scripture to support this, and scripture that clearly states the Gentiles have joined the commonwealth of Israel has already been posted.


There is plenty of evidence that God attested Gentile salvation through the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. I don't know why you are not seeing it. The first occasion of this is Peter's encounter with Cornelius and his family. When Peter returns to Jerusalem to give his report, he explicitly said that he baptized Cornelius and his family because God had already poured out his spirit on them as evidenced by them speaking in tongues. God had saved these people before any of them went through the initiation rituals required to enter the covenant people.

It seems our disagreement hinges on this fact. You seem to think Gentiles were entering the covenant people simply by having faith. Whereas I know that being a member of the covenant people required a Gentile to perform all the initiation rituals to enter.


Actually the Judaizers taught they were not really part of the covenant people and therefore not saved unless they underwent circumcision and followed thelawof moses. The Jerusalem Council did not determine that Gentiles were not part of the covenant therefore they did not need to do either. that is your flawed and scripturally unsupported assertion.

If circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses were prerequisites to entering the covenant people, and we have Biblical evidence this was the case, then my interpretation of the decree of the Jerusalem council is a valid one. Are you suggesting that circumcision and purification were NOT part of the initiation rituals to enter the covenant people?


From what I have seen you don't much agree with the Apostles intepretations of Scripture.


But again, you asserted that Jesus is Israel. Were you going to show me how this interpretation makes sense of Romans 9 - 11?


Any Jew would have imeadiately understood the connection, and would have known why. They knew full well that he messiah would be "One like unto Moses". Not only did Moses prophhecy this, the Apostles quoted t.


I'm aware of Moses' statement in Deuteronomy that God would send a prophet like him. Maybe I misunderstood your wording when you said Jesus would be the "New Moses." But I certainly don't understand how this relates to your point that Jesus is Israel, or how that idea fits with Romans 9.

Benaiah
Jan 30th 2009, 03:03 AM
BroRog,

Rather than continue rehashing the same ground over and over let me just point out what i think is wrong with your method.

Your "interpretations" of Scripture are all based on presuppositions.

1. that there is a sharp distinction between Jews and gentiles, extending even to claims that something written to Jews does not apply to gentiles.

2. Compartmentalization of scripture, instead of using the sum of god's word to arrive at the truth you compartmentalize it, claiming that one letter from Paul has nothing to do with another letter etc. the most obvious problem with this is scripture has ONE author, God. Yes he used men but they were men inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did.

3. a overly literal interpretation of Prophecy,( or maybe more accurately an insistence that prophecy be fulfilled in the manner you think it should be.) which is most certainly not he method employed by the Apostles. All of Jesus Apostles were Jews well versed in the plain text of Scripture, many of their questions concerning things reveal this. they had been taught the scriptures from childhood as had every other Jewsih Child. Yet Jesus had to open their understanding of Scripture for them to comprehend them.


Luk 24:45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

Joh 16:12 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.

Teke
Jan 30th 2009, 02:44 PM
Same thing.

No, they just didn't understand. They thougt that being descendents of Abraham and having the law and priesthood they just needed to become a nation and own land. But that is not what Abraham's covenant was about.



I guess we disagree then.

Abraham's covenant that God made with him is the one the Jews broke in ONLY keeping the law WITHOUT FAITH.
When God brought them out of Egypt they had been keeping Abraham's covenant with God. When they were given the law, they turned from that covenant.

Abraham didn't have the law from Sinai. The covenant God made with Abraham was unconditional, like the promise of the "seed". It was made by God.

Abraham was in deep sleep when God passed between the parts of the animal (passing between the parted animals was the way covenants were made then). Side not, there were five animals, the number of 'grace'.

It was an unconditional covenant, in that Abraham had no part in it, being asleep. "God is one" and only contracting party. See Gal. 3:20, verse 19 showing why the law came, to guide them until the promised seed had come. Paul has told the Galatians in verse 7 that Abrahams righteousness does not consist in keeping the law.

So both the "promise" of the "seed" and the covenant made for land were unconditional.

Now, since a "covenant that was confirmed" (Gal. 3:17) cannot be added to, changed, or annulled, the law which comes later (v17) cannot alter the covenant's promise (v15).

This also pertains to why the people became a priesthood. A priest, is not a mediator between God and man, thier role is to lead people to the Mediator.
Which is also why they had the law, as the law pertains to the priesthood.

There is not contradictions. This is what Paul is making clear.



I picked this obscure verse from Nehemiah to show two things. First, the concept of God's covenant faithfulness, often times translated "lovingkindness" is a common theme in the Bible. It demonstrates that God continues to be faithful to his covenant even though Israel was not. This is essentially what Nehemiah said in his prayer. We didn't keep the covenant, but you continue to keep your end of it anyway.

Nehemiah rightly said that. In that they had not been keeping the one from Sinai. They actually were keeping the one to Abraham in that they were repenting in confessing that they hadn't and believing God to be faithful by their faith.


The entire Mt. Sinai Covenant is a national promise. The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 will also be a national promise.

Actually it is not a national promise, because there was no nation, just people, the Hebrew (called so because they were 'not' a people such as a nation or race) people God took out of Egypt.

Teke
Jan 30th 2009, 02:55 PM
But again, you asserted that Jesus is Israel. Were you going to show me how this interpretation makes sense of Romans 9 - 11?


Hear the proclamation of St Simeon.


Luk 2:28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

Luk 2:29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

Luk 2:30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

Luk 2:31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

Luk 2:32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.


What is the glory of the people, Israel=God prevails. Who is God, Jesus. Who has prevailed, Jesus the Son of God.

BroRog
Jan 30th 2009, 06:11 PM
BroRog,

Rather than continue rehashing the same ground over and over let me just point out what i think is wrong with your method.

Your "interpretations" of Scripture are all based on presuppositions.

1. that there is a sharp distinction between Jews and gentiles, extending even to claims that something written to Jews does not apply to gentiles.

2. Compartmentalization of scripture, instead of using the sum of god's word to arrive at the truth you compartmentalize it, claiming that one letter from Paul has nothing to do with another letter etc. the most obvious problem with this is scripture has ONE author, God. Yes he used men but they were men inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did.

3. a overly literal interpretation of Prophecy,( or maybe more accurately an insistence that prophecy be fulfilled in the manner you think it should be.) which is most certainly not he method employed by the Apostles. All of Jesus Apostles were Jews well versed in the plain text of Scripture, many of their questions concerning things reveal this. they had been taught the scriptures from childhood as had every other Jewsih Child. Yet Jesus had to open their understanding of Scripture for them to comprehend them.

Well, if you are going to criticize my method, let me explain the goal I aspire to achieve. I believe that the Bible is an inspired text, without error, which claims to report to us God's will and intention for mankind, his moral vision, our obligation to him and to our neighbor, and where I stand in light of all that. For this reason, I aspire to be a radical Biblicist. That is, I attempt to ascertain the meaning of the text according to the way it was intended to be understood.

It might be instructive to others if I answer your objections in the light of the goal I aspire to achieve.

1. Among other things, a radical Biblicist considers both the author of a text and those to whom it was written when attempting to understand what that author intended to say. I have found occasions where the objective meaning of a statement depends on knowing this information.

For instance when Paul says, "Oh you foolish Galatians . . ." I understand that he is not writing this to me, since I am not living in the city of Galatia at the time of his writing. And while I attend to what Paul says to the Galatians, I am not going to apply everything he says to them verbatim, since I have no wish to put myself under the Mosaic Law. It isn't even a live issue for me.

Another example comes from the Old Testament, in which God announces that, "My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land." In the context, we understand that God is speaking to his people the Jews living in the land of promise. And yet, for some reason, many Americans wrongly apply this to the United States, having ripped a verse out of context.

2. A radical Biblicist will seek to understand a text on its own terms. It takes discipline to resist the temptation to import another text over the text at hand, happhazardly mapping ideas onto it that don't belong, and missing the author's original intent. Those who lack this disciple see no difficulty with proof texting a topic, taking verses out of context in order to support a preconceived theological theory. The radical Biblicist will not allow himself to juggle bits of text taken out of context in order to find support for a doctrine that may or may not be true. Instead, the radical Biblicist attends the text at hand, seeks to understand the text the way the author intended, before he or she applies it to life or formulates doctrine.

3. The radical Biblicist allows the text to critique his preunderstanding as regards to what Jesus and other Jews understood, and not the other way around. One can be mislead or lead astray if one forces the text to support background material, rather than allowing the text to critique the background material. The Bible is inspired, not the source of our background material. Given this assumption, we must remain sensitive to the dissonant, discordant aspects of our interpretation of a text and not be satisfied until our understanding makes sense of the text rather than letting those discordant aspects remain unresolved.

The radical Biblicist will seek background material in order to place the text into its historical context, but when the background material appears to add nothing to the point or have any relevance to the text under consideration, the radical Biblicist will put the background material aside and not attempt to come up with a forced interpreation that seeks to account for the background material.

What we must realize is that commentators sometimes speculate on the background without being clear that he or she is speculating, not giving us true facts based on evidence. And so, we must be sensitive to this phenominon and allow ourselves the freedom to dismiss a peice of background information that makes no sense out of the passage at hand or has no basis in scholarship.

There is more to Biblical interpretation than this, but since I have decided to limit my comments to your objections, I will stop here except to say this. No one is an infalible interpreter. I certainly am not. And so, I could be wrong in my intepretation. Anyone reading my views should not take them as authoritative or uncritically. I am just a Bible student trying to make sense of the Bible just like anyone reading this should be.

Benaiah
Jan 30th 2009, 07:30 PM
I could not help but think of this passage,


Act 26:24 Now as he thus made his defense, Festus said with a loud voice, "Paul, you are beside yourself! Much learning is driving you mad!"

:D

Teke
Jan 30th 2009, 08:18 PM
I could not help but think of this passage,



:D

:lol::lol:

We love you BroRog.:hug:
The bible doesn't have eyes to see and can be a blind guide when made into a method.

Benaiah
Jan 30th 2009, 10:44 PM
On a more serious note I have serious reservations about approaching something which is spiritual, (Gods word) as though it can be dissected with mere human reasoning.

I don't think that when Jesus opened the Disciples understanding so that they could comprehend the scriptures that it was done via a crash course in literary criticism.

BroRog
Jan 31st 2009, 03:20 AM
You guys made me laugh. Thanks. :)