PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Israel



Pages : [1] 2

sjh
Feb 26th 2010, 10:17 AM
Hi everyone,

What are your thoughts on the modern day Israel?

I'm from the UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important. However I believe the promises made to Abraham (I will bless you, make you a great nation etc) still stand today.

So is Israel 'just another country'? Or does God still have dealings there. And most importantly- if he does---what exactly are those 'dealings'?

I'd love to know your thoughts...

ClayInHisHands
Feb 26th 2010, 11:49 AM
You know here lately I've thought about how I've always seen Revelations. I've prayed about it and asked God for truth to be revealed to me. I can see the historic side of things being unbearable to resist, but not everything seems feesble to me. Because even though I believe that God's promise to Abraham about making him a into great nation, etc. meant those who follow Jesus Christ(Gentiles and Jews)..I can't rest at that conclusion alone.


When I hear anyone ever say Israel is not serving the real God...which I believe alot are not(currently)....but there are real Jews their that are truly Born Again Christians, I really feel deeply that Israel let alone Jerusalem is still VERY important to God. I and any other Christian should be VERY CAREFUL about dismissing Israel as a nation and being not a part of God's future plans. The Jewish race is the most hated and despised in all of history and is so even today. There's something that doesn't sit right with me knowing that it's just by 'coincidence' that Israel has so many enemies who vehemently vigh for their destruction. Yet over the last 1900 some years they were not a nation and to see the way they have stood in the last 62 years alone since becoming an actual world nation through the wars they've had and the way they have been protected...I can not sit here and realistically think that it is just all by chance. That land still means something....if not all the people, but the land. Time will tell....and I will support Israel in any of their efforts and not stand beside the rest of those who call for their destruction. Because I have heard 'many' Christians say Israel means nothing...they should just give up their land for the sake of Peace.......Time will tell


In Christ's Love

Butch5
Feb 26th 2010, 12:48 PM
Hi everyone,

What are your thoughts on the modern day Israel?

I'm from the UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important. However I believe the promises made to Abraham (I will bless you, make you a great nation etc) still stand today.

So is Israel 'just another country'? Or does God still have dealings there. And most importantly- if he does---what exactly are those 'dealings'?

I'd love to know your thoughts...


Genesis 13:14-15 ( KJV )
And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:
For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.



Romans 11:24-29 ( KJV )
For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

ClayInHisHands
Feb 26th 2010, 02:25 PM
Also they way I see it.....if God wants to save Israel or a certain remnant of the Jewish people or however you want to describe it....so be it. I think it is very unwise for us to say what God can do and won't do. Everyone says it is a heart issue...it is....so if in the last days God looks upon their hearts and sees the chains that are holding them in bondage and decides to break them and unblind their eyes in an instant and they believe and they are saved....who are we to say it should be too late for them and thay didn't DO IT THEY WAY WE HAD TO....God's rules, His ways, we don't always understand His ways. In 70 AD I do not believe that God completely left the land of Jerusalem forever. I think it is arrogant of 'The Church' to think we have replaced Israel. Some Christians say the Church has not replaced Israel, but what they say that they believe about alot of other things leads me to believe that they do.

As Butch5 quoted Romans 11:25


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



Has the fulness of the Gentiles been completed? Some say yes via 70 AD, some say no.


As I've said in my previous post...Time will tell



In Christ's Love

David Taylor
Feb 26th 2010, 04:42 PM
I think it is arrogant of 'The Church' to think we have replaced Israel. Some Christians say the Church has not replaced Israel, but what they say that they believe about alot of other things leads me to believe that they do.

Why do you choose to make it so black-and-white, and so all-or-nothing? The entire idea of replace means that you take one group, and you eliminate it to make room for another.
That certainly didn't happen to the 1st century Israelites who believed Jesus and became the first members of the Christ's body the church.

Those Israelites were apart of the church, and they welcomed Gentiles who weren't Israelites to join in with them. I hardly see where anyone is getting replaced. How can joining into, or partking of alongwith be considered 'replacing'?

Look at Romans 11. Does it say that God "replaces" the natural branches (jews) with the wild branches (gentiles); or does it say that the wild branches are graffed in alongside the natural branches, and together they partake of the Root?

Romans 11:17 "and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree"

Looks to me like Scripture is including and adding Gentiles into the promises of God alongside the faithful of Israel; and never replacing anyone.

Look at the original promise made to Abraham....
Genesis 22:17 "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."
God when making promises to Abraham, fortold that his descendents of the entire world of all nations, (not just Israel only) would be blessed and partake of the promise.

The NT re-affirms this inclusion of the Gentiles alongside and with (but not replacing) Israel...

Galatians 3:29 "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Paul goes on to say in Ephesians, that the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile was removed at the cross; and that again Israel wasn't replaced, but rather, the Gentiles were added in along with them as fellow-citizens.

Ephesians 2:11 "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God"


I don't see any replacing at all in Paul's writings, but rather inclusion, addition, and joint participation of the Gentiles in the Church alongside Israel.

I see the term 'replacement' bandied around quite a bit at times, but never seen anyone or any scriptures that truly teach 'replacing' or 'removing'.

Scripturally, there is never replacing. There is either "joining together with", or complete removal from (in the case of unbelieve, equally meted out to unrepentant Jews and Gentiles alike).

Whether or not one believes the 1948 formation of a secular middle-eastern nation, who chose to call themselves 'Israel' or not really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not any replacing is going on.

God can save as many Jews or Gentiles from within the modern state of Israel as He chooses, no more nor any less than He can save any number of Jews or Gentiles from within the modern state of Iceland or Ireland or India.

The problem with humanity isn't defined based on nationalistic allegiences, but rather the individual sin of the heart the plagues every single human being.

As Jesus aptly put it:

Luke 11:23 "He that is not with me is against me"

John 8:46 "if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. "

Matt 7:13 "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Our job as followers of Christ is to go out into all the fields, ripe and ready for harvest....unto all the nations.

Acts 1:8 "ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. "

No replacing.....just adding and inclusion.

markedward
Feb 26th 2010, 07:20 PM
The modern nation of Israel (e.g. the mass of land that is set within borders and a secular government) is no more special than the United States or Russia or Nigeria or Pakistan. God is the King of all nations, and whether Jew or Gentile, if you believe in Christ you have eternal life.

goykodesh
Feb 26th 2010, 07:27 PM
And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."
(Gen 12:3)

David Taylor
Feb 26th 2010, 07:52 PM
And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."
(Gen 12:3)

Great passage...what's the context?

Genesis 12:1 "Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."

The context is directed at Abraham and his seed, someone (a person) who would come from Abraham that would bless the nations, not a government, nor a kingdom, nor a racial group.

Galatians 3:16, 28 "Now 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. for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

How did Abraham play a part in all of the families of the earth being blessed?

Matthew tells us:

Genesis 1:1 "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

and Luke tells us:

Luke 1:68 "he hath visited and redeemed his people, And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life. And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."

and John tells us:

John 8:39 "They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me"

and Acts tells us, quoting Genesis 12 in it's proper context referring to Jesus, not a government or a racial group.....

Acts 3:18 "But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. "

goykodesh
Feb 26th 2010, 08:00 PM
David,

What are the two greatest commands?

David Taylor
Feb 26th 2010, 08:48 PM
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me" John 8:42
"Jesus saith, lovest thou me? ...Feed my lambs. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. " John 21:14, Mark 16:15

goykodesh
Feb 26th 2010, 08:55 PM
"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me" John 8:42
"Jesus saith, lovest thou me? ...Feed my lambs. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. " John 21:14, Mark 16:15


I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 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." And David says, "LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. "LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER." 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. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 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." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
(Rom 11:1-36)

John146
Feb 26th 2010, 08:57 PM
The modern nation of Israel (e.g. the mass of land that is set within borders and a secular government) is no more special than the United States or Russia or Nigeria or Pakistan. God is the King of all nations, and whether Jew or Gentile, if you believe in Christ you have eternal life.Exactly.

Acts 10
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Galatians 3
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.

David Taylor
Feb 26th 2010, 09:14 PM
God's people are those who love Jesus....regardless of race, birthdate, or post-office box.

"Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me" John 8:42

"He that is not with me is against me" Luke 11:23

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. " John 2:23

"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." 2 John 1:9




Some other good parts of Romans.....



Romans 1:16 "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 3:9, 23 "both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"

Romans 3:29 "Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles?"

Romans 8:9 "the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his."

Romans 9:24 "not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God."

Romans 10:10 "For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."


My favorite part of Romans 11.....

Romans 11:17 "and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them (the natural branches) , and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree"

goykodesh
Feb 26th 2010, 09:47 PM
I love it.......Isn't Scripture cool? Much better than our own words and thoughts......though there is no difference between male, female, Jew, Gentile, there is a distinction. that is why Paul said what he did in Romans about the natural branches. Paul is making that distinction.

Think about it (or better yet, pray about it).

ClayInHisHands
Feb 26th 2010, 09:49 PM
I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel? "Lord, THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN DOWN YOUR ALTARS, AND I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY LIFE." But what is the divine response to him? "I HAVE KEPT for Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened; 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." And David says, "LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. "LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER." 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. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 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." From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
(Rom 11:1-36)

Praise God He is a keeper of His promises. He does not change them and we dare not tell Him what He probably meant and should've meant. Israel is still His, and as I've said before.....Time will tell


In Christ's Love

David Taylor
Feb 26th 2010, 10:33 PM
I love it.......Isn't Scripture cool? Much better than our own words and thoughts......though there is no difference between male, female, Jew, Gentile, there is a distinction. that is why Paul said what he did in Romans about the natural branches. Paul is making that distinction.

Think about it (or better yet, pray about it).

This distinction?

Romans 11:17 "and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them (the natural branches) , and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree"

The only disctiction Paul is telling us, is that only the faithful natural and wild branches avoid being broken off and cast into the fire. And that the faithful and wild braches are graffed in together, and partake together of the Root!

David Taylor
Feb 26th 2010, 10:56 PM
Praise God He is a keeper of His promises. He does not change them


Amen to the promises God made to Abraham and His Seed, the children of the promise(both Jew and Gentile who serve Him)!!!

"Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. " Romans 9:7, 24

"Now 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. for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:16, 28

"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me" John 8:39

nzyr
Feb 26th 2010, 11:34 PM
God still cares about them. And the Jews are still His people. God punishes any nation that are bad to them.

ClayInHisHands
Feb 27th 2010, 12:43 AM
I guess I might be being misunderstood here. If any Jewish person dies without accepting Christ they will go to hell....period...end of story. Just because they are Jewish doesn't give them a free pass without Jesus.

As I've said in another thread....I've read alot of the information about Partial Preterism....and I'm not attacking them....I'm saying based on this view everything in Revelaltion has been fulfilled except the Second Coming, Satan's Doom and The Final Judgement. The only thing I have a hard time trying to believe is that Jerusalem, the modern state of Israel, 70 AD happens and then after 1878 years - Nothing. Then all of a sudden after 1878 years of nothing....Israel, the same land, Jerusalem the capital, becomes a Nation accepted - whether agreed by every other nation or not, and then with everything that has come to fruition since 1948....I simply can not believe that it is a big coincidence the way they have survived...I don't care if they are not a complete Christian nation or not. I am not saying thay are saved without accepting Christ....I am saying that I believe that God is not done with Israel as a nation.
And I think that we should be careful to simply say that the modern state of Israel means absolutely nothing to God and that they are viewed by God just the same as every other nation in the world.


In Christ's Love

crossnote
Feb 27th 2010, 01:13 AM
Hi everyone,

What are your thoughts on the modern day Israel?

I'm from the UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important. However I believe the promises made to Abraham (I will bless you, make you a great nation etc) still stand today.

So is Israel 'just another country'? Or does God still have dealings there. And most importantly- if he does---what exactly are those 'dealings'?

I'd love to know your thoughts...

The UK seems to be in acquiesce or Chamberlain mode. At one time she would be quick to defend an ally like Israel, now the attitude is 'what me care?, just another piece of real estate, and besides it's not worth the higher price of oil.' America is going in the same direction.
I believe God is going to deal with those He has drawn back into the Land in a salvific way, even though it may take great tribulation first.

BroRog
Feb 27th 2010, 03:08 AM
Hi everyone,

What are your thoughts on the modern day Israel?

I'm from the UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important. However I believe the promises made to Abraham (I will bless you, make you a great nation etc) still stand today.

So is Israel 'just another country'? Or does God still have dealings there. And most importantly- if he does---what exactly are those 'dealings'?

I'd love to know your thoughts...Yes, God still has dealings there. If I read my prophecy right, at some point God will raise a prophet in Israel, who will warn Israel about a coming impending doom. The people living in Israel at that time will be instructed to move to a designated location. Those who believe the prophet will be saved. Those who don't believe what the prophet says will die. The remaining Israelites will reconstitute themselves and at that time God will make a new covenant with the survivors. At that time, Israel will live under a monarchy, with Jesus as the king. God will bring the surrounding nations against her and this time God will save Israel, making it evident that God is both real and able to take care of his people.

My heart's Desire
Feb 27th 2010, 04:15 AM
Hi everyone,

What are your thoughts on the modern day Israel?

I'm from the UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important. However I believe the promises made to Abraham (I will bless you, make you a great nation etc) still stand today.

So is Israel 'just another country'? Or does God still have dealings there. And most importantly- if he does---what exactly are those 'dealings'?

I'd love to know your thoughts...

My belief is that God has never given up His promise to Abraham, which included more than the promise of the Messiah, nor has it been transferred to the church. The Land is still God's land as all is and it is God Who sets up the kingdoms. Blessed are those who bless Israel. Any interested in the signs of the times need to look to Israel.

kay-gee
Feb 27th 2010, 04:57 AM
What is it about 70 AD that folks aren't getting? That was GOD saying to Israel...It's over!!!

It's over people. You're Christians. Stop obsessing about Israel. We have Christ. Isn't Christ superior to some dusty war torn piece of land?

I'm beginning to believe 1948 is part of the great delusion to decieve the elect. More bad theology has come from 1948 than ever before.

Christians today show more interest in Israel than the church it seems. That's just wrong.

all the best...

Sirus
Feb 27th 2010, 06:12 AM
kay-gee, how is what happened in 70AD different than the times before when....it wasn't over?
:idea:
that's what I thought....
:spin:
Christians are not denying the faith believing 1948 is significant.

crossnote
Feb 27th 2010, 02:54 PM
70 AD? Sounds like a bump in the road...

For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? There are several other hints of there being a great restoration as well.
(Rom 11:15)

or

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

this implies a future lifting of their blindness.

BroRog
Feb 27th 2010, 06:43 PM
70 AD? Sounds like a bump in the road...

For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? There are several other hints of there being a great restoration as well.
(Rom 11:15)

or

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

this implies a future lifting of their blindness.Exactly. Paul says that the blindness is only partial and temporary.

Sirus
Mar 2nd 2010, 12:57 AM
For those that think God is through with Israel, how is 70AD different than the times before?
Spiritualizing promises of God to Israel and applying them to the church, for which there is not scripture for at all, almost seems like an obsession to some. How can this be? Land is land, land is not the heart.
Christians are not supposed to be arrogant. If it is indeed true that Israel will be restored, saying they will not and that the Church is the replacement or true fulfillment of 'Israel', is arrogance against the natural branches (Rom 11:17-18) IMO. Be careful!

Sirus
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:04 AM
I'm beginning to believe 1948 is part of the great delusion to decieve the elect. More bad theology has come from 1948 than ever before.Interesting....
You really think those that believe in the restoration of Israel are in peril, do not love the truth, are not saved, have pleasure in unrighteousness, and will be damned as a result?
How is Israel becoming a nation a sign and wonder by a false prophet?

2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

newinchrist4now
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:12 AM
Hi everyone,

What are your thoughts on the modern day Israel?

I'm from the UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important. However I believe the promises made to Abraham (I will bless you, make you a great nation etc) still stand today.

So is Israel 'just another country'? Or does God still have dealings there. And most importantly- if he does---what exactly are those 'dealings'?

I'd love to know your thoughts...

Now that we have Christ thier is neither Jew nor Gentile in Him.

Sirus
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:14 AM
Now that we have Christ thier is neither Jew nor Gentile in Him.Who said anything about Jew vs Gentile? Jew and Gentile were always the same in Him. God didn't just start being not a respecter of persons since Christ. He has always been the God of Gentiles. I can name many if you'd like.

newinchrist4now
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:15 AM
I was answering the question

Sirus
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:20 AM
What question did you think you were answering???

newinchrist4now
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:49 AM
If Israel matters, usually when someone asks they mean Jews. So no I do not think Israel matters anymore

Sirus
Mar 2nd 2010, 01:58 AM
thanks for clarifying.....Jews/Israeli's do not matter.....(even though that was not the question).

"UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important"
"is Israel 'just another country'?"
"does God still have dealings there"

kay-gee
Mar 2nd 2010, 03:58 AM
Israel the nation is finished as far as a special role in Gods plan. The promise is complete and fulfilled in His Holy Nation, which is the church.

all the best...

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2010, 03:20 PM
Israel the nation is finished as far as a special role in Gods plan. The promise is complete and fulfilled in His Holy Nation, which is the church.

all the best...

What about God's plan to restore his holy name?

kay-gee
Mar 2nd 2010, 03:33 PM
What about God's plan to restore his holy name?

Huh? God has to restore His name? What kind of bizarre philosophy is that?

God doesn't need to restore anything. What does He owe us? He is the potter. We are the clay.

all the best...

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2010, 04:46 PM
Huh? God has to restore His name? What kind of bizarre philosophy is that?

God doesn't need to restore anything. What does He owe us? He is the potter. We are the clay.

all the best...Yes, God wants to restore his holy name. He says so himself. Look into it and get back to me if you can't find anything in the Bible that mentions it.

David Taylor
Mar 2nd 2010, 06:58 PM
What about God's plan to restore his holy name?

Restore God's name from 'what' to 'what'?
:confused

Going along with you notion that God's name needs restoring, who tarnished God's name to begin with?
:confused

When Jesus said in Matthew that the Father's name was hallowed "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name", when did it cease to be hallowed?
:confused

BroRog
Mar 2nd 2010, 10:57 PM
Restore God's name from 'what' to 'what'?
:confusedWhen God allowed Assyria, and after that Babylon, to take Israel captive into the nations, this resulted in the blaspheme of his name. (Romans 2:24, Isaiah 52:5ff, Ezekiel 36:23)

Going along with you notion that God's name needs restoring, who tarnished God's name to begin with?
:confusedEssentially, the fact that other countries were allowed to defeat Israel in battle and take her people captive into slavery in a foriegn land, tarnished God's reputation as a God who couldn't keep a people for his name.

When Jesus said in Matthew that the Father's name was hallowed "Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name", when did it cease to be hallowed?
:confusedThe verb in this statement is not in the indicative mood as in "Hollowed IS your name", the verb is in the imperative mood as an entreaty, "Please make your name holy." We are to petition God that he make his name holy as he said he would do in Ezekiel 36:23.

John146
Mar 3rd 2010, 02:19 PM
God still cares about them. And the Jews are still His people. God punishes any nation that are bad to them.You are trying to say that merely being a natural Jew makes someone one of His people? Paul said otherwise.

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.

So, Paul makes it clear that being a child of God (being one of His people) has nothing to do with nationality. So, what does it have to do with then?

Gal 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.


God's people are only those who have faith in Christ Jesus. This means that Jews who do not have faith in Christ Jesus are not God's people.

ClayInHisHands
Mar 4th 2010, 06:54 PM
So is everyone who says that Israel as a nation(not Jewish people) is finished as far as God is concerned in agreement that, not a peep out of Israel for 1800 some years and everything going on with hatred towards Israel and the call for it to be wiped out is a mere BIG COINCIDENCE? Someone stated earlier...I can't remember who it was, I am paraphrasing....that a group of Jews basically became a nation and basically just used the name "ISRAEL" because they believe they are rightful heirs to God's promises and that was to be the name of their nation....is this what you believe to be true also?

sjh
Mar 4th 2010, 11:15 PM
wow this is all really interesting discussion on both sides.

As you may have guessed, I totally believe God hasn't finished with Israel.
Before I go on I should clarify

there is ONE way to be saved and that is through Jesus. Nothing else.

But the Bible also says we gentiles are 'grafted in'- therefore we should not boast and say Israel (both the people and the nation) are not important to God. Cause that denys THE REST of scripture! Both old and new testaments.

So you have to ask what is God's plan?

Ultimately it's that the Jews will know him. I see 1948 as a sign of God's grace on his people. And as the prophetic books say- 1) God restores Israel. 2) They will 'know my name'- ie accept Jesus! So it's all for God's glory- not for the Jew's glory! they WILL come to know him eventually and then ALL ISRAEL will be saved!

The truth is there is nothing in scripture that denys God's ETERNAL covenent with Abraham that says God is giving the land of Caanan to Abraham's descendents (Jews) as an EVERLASTING POSSESSION. meditate on those last two words, look them up in genesis, do the Hebrew word study if you want, and you will soon conclude that everlasting possession means everlasting possession!

Finally I believe the end times will make no sense to you unless you get the setting right! The setting for all of the Bible is Israel. The setting for the End Times is obviously heaven, hell etc. but it also includes a lot of stuff happening on earth. Where on earth? Not america! Not Europe. ISRAEL. If you take Israel out of the end times you have no setting for future events! I mean take armageddon for example- the plains of amageddon are actual historical locations in Israel! You can go there today.

I'll stop there...

That's where I'm coming from anyway.
For those who agree with me on this stuff, check out Isrelate.com (http://www.isrelate.com)- it's really good at helping Christians keep up to date with what's going on.
And for those who aren't so sure and perhaps don't believe what I'm saying- check out these short video clips (http://www.isrelate.com/pages/base/66/Start-Here)!

nzyr
Mar 4th 2010, 11:34 PM
But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (Acts 15:11-16)

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God. (Amos 9:11,15)

Nihil Obstat
Mar 5th 2010, 02:51 AM
Hi everyone,

What are your thoughts on the modern day Israel?

I'm from the UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important. However I believe the promises made to Abraham (I will bless you, make you a great nation etc) still stand today.

So is Israel 'just another country'? Or does God still have dealings there. And most importantly- if he does---what exactly are those 'dealings'?

I'd love to know your thoughts...

I haven't yet read any responses to your OP, but I started a post on this very topic here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?201614-1948).

Nihil Obstat
Mar 5th 2010, 03:24 AM
After having read through the whole of this thread, I am surprised that no one has yet responded to this post:


Yes, God still has dealings there. If I read my prophecy right, at some point God will raise a prophet in Israel, who will warn Israel about a coming impending doom. The people living in Israel at that time will be instructed to move to a designated location. Those who believe the prophet will be saved. Those who don't believe what the prophet says will die. The remaining Israelites will reconstitute themselves and at that time God will make a new covenant with the survivors. At that time, Israel will live under a monarchy, with Jesus as the king. God will bring the surrounding nations against her and this time God will save Israel, making it evident that God is both real and able to take care of his people.

Roger, you're my buddy, and I'd love to meet you in person some day, but I think you're way off here. The prophet that God was going to raise up was Jesus (Acts 3:22; 7:37; cf. Matt. 17:5). He said many things, and those who hear Him live, and those who don't die (John 5:25 ff). He also spoke of an impending doom that was soon to come against Israel - 70 AD (Matt. 24:2; Luke 19:41-44). He said for those that heeded His words to go out of Jerusalem when Rome came against them (Matt. 24:16), which is documented to have happened. He also made the new covenant already (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 8:1-10:18; etc). He sits enthroned as King right now (Acts 2:32-36), and the nations do come to Him (you and me, bro).

Could you maybe explain yourself more thoroughly, in case I've misunderstood you?

Also, for further thoughts of mine on this, read here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?203878-Romans-11-26&p=2357216#post2357216).

BroRog
Mar 5th 2010, 05:55 PM
After having read through the whole of this thread, I am surprised that no one has yet responded to this post:



Roger, you're my buddy, and I'd love to meet you in person some day, but I think you're way off here. The prophet that God was going to raise up was Jesus (Acts 3:22; 7:37; cf. Matt. 17:5). He said many things, and those who hear Him live, and those who don't die (John 5:25 ff). He also spoke of an impending doom that was soon to come against Israel - 70 AD (Matt. 24:2; Luke 19:41-44). He said for those that heeded His words to go out of Jerusalem when Rome came against them (Matt. 24:16), which is documented to have happened. He also made the new covenant already (Matt. 26:28; Heb. 8:1-10:18; etc). He sits enthroned as King right now (Acts 2:32-36), and the nations do come to Him (you and me, bro).

Could you maybe explain yourself more thoroughly, in case I've misunderstood you?

Also, for further thoughts of mine on this, read here (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?203878-Romans-11-26&p=2357216#post2357216).

At this point I believe that everything I laid out in that post is coming in our future. However, I am willing to go along with your response for the sake of discussion as I can see how some of that scenario could align with first century events. So let me look at the scenario step-by-step and make comments. For this exercise, I will assume that some of the scenario took place in the first century.

At some point God will raise a prophet in Israel, who will warn Israel about a coming impending doom.
While I believe this is still in our future, I see that it is possible that the prophet is Jesus and the doom was the Roman/Jewish wars of the first century, which devastated Israel and her people.

The people living in Israel at that time will be instructed to move to a designated location. Those who believe the prophet will be saved. Those who don't believe what the prophet says will die.
This was certainly true of the first century Roman/Jewish wars, especially with regard to Jerusalem. Jesus specifically warned those living in Jerusalem to flee the city when they saw the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place, or when they saw the Roman armies surround Jerusalem. According to Josephus, Titus did not want to destroy Jerusalem or the Jewish temple. Rather, he intended to restore the peace and security of Jerusalem during a time when certain seditious men took control of the city, murdered her official leaders, and began to plunder the city, placing her citizens in harm's way. Before he attacked the city, he sent messengers to the city wall, offering safe passage to anyone who wanted to leave the city. And some of those who lived behind those walls accepted his offer and left the city.

The remaining Israelites will reconstitute themselves . . .

If we accept that the Roman/Jewish wars fulfill the prediction of a prophet and a coming impending doom, then Israel's declaration of independence in 1948 fulfills the prediction that she will reconstitute herself.

. . . and at that time God will make a new covenant with the survivors.

While the blood of Jesus is the blood of the New Covenant, I don't think Jesus made the New Covenant with Israel as predicted by Jeremiah. This has yet to take place. We need to keep and maintain a distinction between our relationship with God as individuals and Jacob's relationship with God as a nation. One could say that some of the eternal aspects of the New Covenant are in effect today, namely, that God is saving individuals by the blood of the Lamb and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, what God does for us individually today, he will do for an entire nation tomorrow.

At that time, Israel will live under a monarchy, with Jesus as the king.
Here also, the distinction between individuals and a nation is important. The fact that Jesus sits as king over his followers is undeniable. But he doesn't sit as king over the nation of Israel taken as a nation.

God will bring the surrounding nations against her and this time God will save Israel, making it evident that God is both real and able to take care of his people.

This prophecy has yet to be fulfilled and as I have mentioned Ezekiel 36 before I will not bring it up here again. Another prophet also talked about this same time period and it would be worth noting it here since Joel has a key statement which we should look at.

Without going into a lot of detail, Joel writes about a time when Israel will experience desolation, and destruction so severe that there will never be anything like it again. It is not clear whether he speaks of actual locust plague or human armies that come to destroy the land, but in any case this will cause great alarm and the people will tremble.

It think this is still in our future, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume this took place at the hands of the Roman armies in 70AD. This being the case, Joel predicts that sometime after 70AD, Israel will gather together again in repentance and mourning and seek God. The following passage has a key statement I will highlight in bold.

Gather the people, sanctify the congregation,
Assemble the elders, Gather the children and the nursing infants
Let the bridegroom come out of his room
And the bride out of her bridal chamber.
Let the priests, the LORD'S ministers, Weep between the porch and the altar,
And let them say, "Spare Your people, O LORD, And do not make Your inheritance a reproach, A byword among the nations
Why should they among the peoples say, 'Where is their God?'"

Then the LORD will be zealous for His land
And will have pity on His people.
The LORD will answer and say to His people,
"Behold, I am going to send you grain, new wine and oil,
And you will be satisfied in full with them;
And I will never again make you a reproach among the nations. Joel 2:16-19.

According to Joel, once God brings this plague on Israel and once they return to him in mourning and repentance, he will restore the land, bring them food and plenty, and he will "never again make them a reproach among the nations." This is a picture of one nation, Israel, standing among the other nations of the region and God promises her that he will never bring shame and disgrace to her among the other nations.

Once again, a little further down the passage he repeats this refrain twice again.

You will have plenty to eat and be satisfied
And praise the name of the LORD your God,
Who has dealt wondrously with you;
Then My people will never be put to shame.
Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel,
And that I am the LORD your God,
And there is no other;
And My people will never be put to shame. Joel 2:26-27

Here we have a nation of people who have gone through a terrible devastation, and having eventually repented and mourned and prayed to God to restore his name -- Why should they among the peoples say, 'Where is their God?" -- he promises to bring them back to the land, replenish the land, bring food and plenty and he will cause them to praise the name of the Lord. And through all this, the nation will learn that indeed, "I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God." By comparison to all the other nations that surround the little country of Israel, it will be said that Israel is God's nation and he is their God. And the promise goes out that from that point forward, Israel will never be put to shame.

It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
Joel 2:28-29

Assuming for the moment that the impending doom mentioned earlier was the Roman devastation of 70AD, in which God sent his wrath on "this land and this people", then the outpouring of the Spirit mentioned in Joel 2:28-29 comes AFTER 70AD as the prophet says, "It will come about after this . . . " After God brings a plague on Israel that causes extensive destruction and ruin to the land of Israel, laying waste to the land; After the nation eventually repents, mourns and cries out for God to restore his name among the people; after he brings prosperity, plenty, full supply, and rejoicing; and after God demonstrates to the surrounding nations and Israel herself, that he is God with a capital 'G' (there is no other, including Allah) he will pour out his spirit on the nation of Israel, causing them to prophesy, dream dreams, and see visions.

And I believe that all of this is still in our future.

John146
Mar 5th 2010, 06:51 PM
wow this is all really interesting discussion on both sides.

As you may have guessed, I totally believe God hasn't finished with Israel.
Before I go on I should clarify

there is ONE way to be saved and that is through Jesus. Nothing else.

But the Bible also says we gentiles are 'grafted in'- therefore we should not boast and say Israel (both the people and the nation) are not important to God. Cause that denys THE REST of scripture! Both old and new testaments.But, of course, no one here is saying that. It's just that some of us believe that the nation of Israel and its people are not any more important to God than any other nation and its people.

Acts 10
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

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.


So you have to ask what is God's plan?

Ultimately it's that the Jews will know him. I see 1948 as a sign of God's grace on his people.Are you saying that unbelievers are His people? Most people in Israel don't believe in Christ.

Romans 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


The truth is there is nothing in scripture that denys God's ETERNAL covenent with Abraham that says God is giving the land of Caanan to Abraham's descendents (Jews) as an EVERLASTING POSSESSION. meditate on those last two words, look them up in genesis, do the Hebrew word study if you want, and you will soon conclude that everlasting possession means everlasting possession! How do you interpret the following passage:

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

John146
Mar 5th 2010, 07:14 PM
It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.
Joel 2:28-29

Assuming for the moment that the impending doom mentioned earlier was the Roman devastation of 70AD, in which God sent his wrath on "this land and this people", then the outpouring of the Spirit mentioned in Joel 2:28-29 comes AFTER 70AD as the prophet says, "It will come about after this . . . " After God brings a plague on Israel that causes extensive destruction and ruin to the land of Israel, laying waste to the land; After the nation eventually repents, mourns and cries out for God to restore his name among the people; after he brings prosperity, plenty, full supply, and rejoicing; and after God demonstrates to the surrounding nations and Israel herself, that he is God with a capital 'G' (there is no other, including Allah) he will pour out his spirit on the nation of Israel, causing them to prophesy, dream dreams, and see visions.

And I believe that all of this is still in our future.Why would you believe that Joel 2:28-29 is only in the future when Peter very clearly indicated that it was already beginning to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost long ago?

Joel 2
28And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
29And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

So, there's Joel's prophecy and here is Peter's interpretation. This is Peter speaking after people had been filled with the Holy Spirit and were speaking in the native tongues of people from various nations who were there and some thought maybe they were drunk:

Acts 2
14But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

It's simply undeniable that the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29 at the very least began on that day of Pentecost long ago since Peter related the prophecy directly to what was happening on that day. Why not interpret Joel 2:28-29 based on what Peter said about it rather than on your own understanding of the preceding verses? Find a way to make the verses that precede Joel 2:28-29 fit Peter's understanding of the prophecy (as revealed to him by the Holy Spirit) rather than make them fit your understanding of the verses that immediately precede Joel 2:28-29.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 5th 2010, 07:16 PM
The remaining Israelites will reconstitute themselves . . .

If we accept that the Roman/Jewish wars fulfill the prediction of a prophet and a coming impending doom, then Israel's declaration of independence in 1948 fulfills the prediction that she will reconstitute herself.

Paul's point is that Israel already has been reconstituted, not in some promised land, but in the Person of Christ (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1).


. . . and at that time God will make a new covenant with the survivors.

While the blood of Jesus is the blood of the New Covenant, I don't think Jesus made the New Covenant with Israel as predicted by Jeremiah. This has yet to take place. We need to keep and maintain a distinction between our relationship with God as individuals and Jacob's relationship with God as a nation. One could say that some of the eternal aspects of the New Covenant are in effect today, namely, that God is saving individuals by the blood of the Lamb and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, what God does for us individually today, he will do for an entire nation tomorrow.

Again, Peter calls the Jew-plus-Gentile church a nation, as does John in the Revelation, as does Paul in Ephesians. Furthermore, to cut a covenant is to make a covenant, so what you said doesn't make any sense. As Luke records over and again in Acts, the hope of Israel was the resurrection of Jesus - the gospel accounts are the testimony that what God had covenanted with Adam, Abraham, Israel via Moses, and David has all been confirmed in the exaltation of Jesus. (Have you read my post that I linked to?)

-

I'll have to comment on your stuff on Joel later, as I have to get ready for work. In the mean time, notice how Peter in Acts 2 interprets Joel's prophecy as foretelling of Jesus' earthly ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension. Also, notice how Paul quotes Eze. 36 in both Rom. 2 and 2 Cor. 3 as being a reality in his day.

Blessings to you.

RogerW
Mar 5th 2010, 08:01 PM
70 AD? Sounds like a bump in the road...

For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? There are several other hints of there being a great restoration as well.
(Rom 11:15)

Hi Crossnote,

"Of them be" is in italics (KJV), telling us that it was not part of the text, but added to aid readability. The verse is actually saying, the casting away of Israel (those in unbelief) means atonement (reconciling) has come to the world...what shall the receiving (those of the world) but life from the dead?



or

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

this implies a future lifting of their blindness.

When the fullness of the Gentiles come in (become saved) with Israel to partake of the same Root (Christ), then "all Israel will be saved" (both Jew & Gentile believers), not then "blindness will be lifted."

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
Mar 5th 2010, 09:07 PM
Why would you believe that Joel 2:28-29 is only in the future when Peter very clearly indicated that it was already beginning to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost long ago?I don't believe Peter was saying that Pentecost fulfilled Joel 2:28-29 for the reason I outlined in the previous post. The outpouring Joel spoke about would occure AFTER God brings Israel back to the land, Israel is gathered together in a unified voice of repentance and mourning, she seeks God on the basis that he restore his name, and God restores the land to abundance. Secondly, God says that once he restores the land from destruction, Israel will never again suffer ridicule.


It's simply undeniable that the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-29 at the very least began on that day of Pentecost long ago since Peter related the prophecy directly to what was happening on that day. Why not interpret Joel 2:28-29 based on what Peter said about it rather than on your own understanding of the preceding verses? Find a way to make the verses that precede Joel 2:28-29 fit Peter's understanding of the prophecy (as revealed to him by the Holy Spirit) rather than make them fit your understanding of the verses that immediately precede Joel 2:28-29.Bible interpretation doesn't work that way. First of all, we will never learn what the Bible says if we bring an interpretation to a passage and attempt to force the passage to say what we think it means. Second, both Joel and Peter were speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Anyway, why would I force an interpretation on Joel 2, suggesting that "after" actually means "before"? In any other situation, you would be accusing me of twisting the passage to suit my pet theory. A simpler explaination has Peter using Pentecost as a precedent case of Joel 2:28-29 to give the crowd an example of the kind of thing they have witnessed.

Also, the fact that Peter quotes Joel 2 all the way up to the part about blood, fire, smoke, darkness and the day of the Lord, strongly suggests that Peter didn't mean to say that Pentecost fulfilled Joel 2. Nothing like that happened during Pentecost. There was no smoke or fire. The sun didn't turn into darkness, and moon didn't turn into blood and the Day of the Lord didn't begin then. Even Paul later says that the Day of the Lord hadn't happened yet.

John146
Mar 5th 2010, 10:09 PM
I don't believe Peter was saying that Pentecost fulfilled Joel 2:28-29 for the reason I outlined in the previous post. The outpouring Joel spoke about would occure AFTER God brings Israel back to the land, Israel is gathered together in a unified voice of repentance and mourning, she seeks God on the basis that he restore his name, and God restores the land to abundance. Secondly, God says that once he restores the land from destruction, Israel will never again suffer ridicule.Did Peter, while referring to what was happening on that day of Pentecost long ago, say "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" for nothing? You are trying to say "this" (what was occurring on the day of Pentecost) was not even partly "that which was spoken by the prophet Joel". How can that be?


Bible interpretation doesn't work that way.Sure, it does. We can trust the interpretations given in the NT of the OT prophecies. There's no reason to try to explain them away just because they don't line up with your own interpretation.


First of all, we will never learn what the Bible says if we bring an interpretation to a passage and attempt to force the passage to say what we think it means.That's not what I'm doing. When Peter said "this is that....", I accept that. You, on the other hand, are saying "this" (outpuring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost) was not "that" (Joel 2:28-29) at all even though Peter said it was.


Anyway, why would I force an interpretation on Joel 2, suggesting that "after" actually means "before"?Actually, my issue with your interpretation is due to you not accepting that "this" (outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost) referred to "that" prophecy from Joel 2, as I explained above.


In any other situation, you would be accusing me of twisting the passage to suit my pet theory.I definitely believe that's what you're doing by saying "this" is not "that" even though Peter said it was.


A simpler explaination has Peter using Pentecost as a precedent case of Joel 2:28-29 to give the crowd an example of the kind of thing they have witnessed.How does "this is that" turn into "this is something like what Joel prophesied, but has nothing specifically to do with what he prophesied"? Come on.


Also, the fact that Peter quotes Joel 2 all the way up to the part about blood, fire, smoke, darkness and the day of the Lord, strongly suggests that Peter didn't mean to say that Pentecost fulfilled Joel 2.No, he was saying that was the beginning of the fulfillment. People are still calling upon the name of the Lord and being saved today (Joel 2:32 - Acts 2:21).


Nothing like that happened during Pentecost. There was no smoke or fire. The sun didn't turn into darkness, and moon didn't turn into blood and the Day of the Lord didn't begin then. Even Paul later says that the Day of the Lord hadn't happened yet.I didn't say that it has, either. That was the beginning. There certainly was a major outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and people have been receiving the Spirit ever since.

sjh
Mar 6th 2010, 10:54 AM
But, of course, no one here is saying that. It's just that some of us believe that the nation of Israel and its people are not any more important to God than any other nation and its people.

You can't get around it like that. Either God hasn't finished with his people or he has. Either Israel is important or it isn't. Paul says God hasn't finished with Israel. That means something will happen in the future of paticular significance to the Jews.


Are you saying that unbelievers are His people? Most people in Israel don't believe in Christ.

God's people are those who believe, of course. But you can't deny God has set aside the Jewish race as his people from the beginning. Ok they may not be saved (yet!!), but God still loves them and wants to bless them, so in that sense they are his people.


How do you interpret the following passage:

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

That's simple! Joshua took the promised land. That doesn't dis count anything that's happening today though does it? It's merely a continuation of God's promise to Abraham

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 12:22 PM
You can't get around it like that. Either God hasn't finished with his people or he has. Either Israel is important or it isn't. Paul says God hasn't finished with Israel. That means something will happen in the future of paticular significance to the Jews.



Jesus told the nation of Israel the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to a new holy nation because of Israel's unbelief and rejection of her promised Messiah.
Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits. And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Mat 21:43-44 MKJV)This pronouncement by the Lord became the “death-knell of the Jewish nation” and it was fulfilled when God used the Roman legions under Titus (70AD) to sack Jerusalem and destroy the temple. God’s word is clear and true – the holy nation of God today is the church of God not the disbelieving secular nation of Israel. God only has *one holy nation* and it is made up of those Jews and Gentiles who call on the name of the Lord.


God's people are those who believe, of course. But you can't deny God has set aside the Jewish race as his people from the beginning. Ok they may not be saved (yet!!), but God still loves them and wants to bless them, so in that sense they are his people.
God loves the people of all nations and He wants all to come to the saving knowledge of the Lord – it is His desire that none should perish. Whatever future hope the nation of Israel has it is the same hope that those of all nations have – salvation through the blood of Christ. God is not a respecter of persons.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (Joh 3:16 KJV)

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 12:38 PM
I don't believe Peter was saying that Pentecost fulfilled Joel 2:28-29 for the reason I outlined in the previous post.


Rog – our friend John146 is correct – the promise made in Joel 2:28-32 began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on those Jewish believers (the circumcised) and it continued when this same outpouring of the Spirit was given to the Gentiles beginning with the household of Cornelius.
And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Act 10:45-47 ESV)

Nihil Obstat
Mar 6th 2010, 02:44 PM
God's people are those who believe, of course. But you can't deny God has set aside the Jewish race as his people from the beginning.

But why did God set aside the Jewish family? In the beginning God dwelt with man in perfect peace until Adam sinned, by which death entered into creation. But before escorting Adam from paradise, God covenanted with Adam, saying that He would destroy death for all men through Adam's seed, that He might dwell with men in perfect peace once again. After the Flood was the tower of Babel when the one family on earth was separated into many different families. Adam's seed could only come through one of those many families, though that seed would still be brought forth for the sake of all the families. Therefore, when God covenanted with Abraham (and David, for that matter), that covenant was founded upon the Adamic covenant. Abraham's seed (and David's) was the promised Adamic seed that would come for all mankind, indeed, all of creation. And who was that Abrahamic seed, according to NT testimony? Jesus Christ, the second Adam, who was born of Adam, of Abraham, of David, and of the virgin Mary. The NT authors consistently proclaim that not only was Jesus this promised seed, but that as that seed, He brought about those things that the seed was promised to bring about. Through Jesus, all families, not just the Jewish family, have been brought back into a perfectly peaceful relationship with God. Those in covenant with God through the blood of Jesus are the one people of God - the church consisting of the one new man, where there is no Jew or Gentile, or male or female. Hallelujah!

Sirus
Mar 6th 2010, 04:03 PM
But, of course, no one here is saying that. It's just that some of us believe that the nation of Israel and its people are not any more important to God than any other nation and its people.

Acts 10
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

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.These are about salvation, not government.


How do you interpret the following passage:

Joshua 21
43And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.
44And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand.
45There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.There's nothing to interpret. It's very clear. It's just missing the 'for ever' part.

Gen 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Exo 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

Deu 4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

Jer 7:7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.

Heb 4:8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.
Heb 4:9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 05:54 PM
There's nothing to interpret. It's very clear. It's just missing the 'for ever' part.


You completely misunderstand how the term “for ever” can be used in Holy Writ. It is not always used in an unlimited and "forever" sense. God told the Hebrew nation that circumcision was an “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:13) just as He said the Mosaical system had an “everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13) but these “shadows” of thing to come passed away when the entire Mosaical system was nailed to the cross of Christ, i.e., they were not to last ‘fore ever’ they were fulfilled and were annulled when that which was Perfect came. The term “for ever” often times has a temporary significance in the Bible.

This is clearly seen in the “land promised” to the Israelites. The promise was a *conditional promise* - it was conditioned on the fidelity of the Jews to God’s requirements. As already mentioned – God delivered ALL of the land promised to the Israelites and they occupied that land just as God had promised them. But through rebellion and unbelief the nation of Israel rejected her promised Messiah and 'God destroyed them from off the good land which He gave them'. There is no future land promise awaiting the Jewish people – they have forfeited their deed to the land of promise.
Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come on you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring on you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you (Joshua 23:15-16).There remains only one hope for Jews today – the hope found in the blood of Jesus Christ as presented in the gospel of grace. Any other hope including a future land hope is nothing more than a *false hope*.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Rom 1:16, AKJV)

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 06:11 PM
Rog – our friend John146 is correct – the promise made in Joel 2:28-32 began to be fulfilled on the day of Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on those Jewish believers (the circumcised) and it continued when this same outpouring of the Spirit was given to the Gentiles beginning with the household of Cornelius.
And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" (Act 10:45-47 ESV)I do not agree that Pentecost was a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-28 for the reasons I already presented.

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 06:27 PM
Did Peter, while referring to what was happening on that day of Pentecost long ago, say "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" for nothing? You are trying to say "this" (what was occurring on the day of Pentecost) was not even partly "that which was spoken by the prophet Joel". How can that be?I explained myself in my previous post.


Sure, it does. We can trust the interpretations given in the NT of the OT prophecies. There's no reason to try to explain them away just because they don't line up with your own interpretation.
That isn't the point. You have a particular interpretation of Peter's statement, which may or may not be true. It is my contention that you misunderstood Peter.


That's not what I'm doing. When Peter said "this is that....", I accept that. You, on the other hand, are saying "this" (outpuring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost) was not "that" (Joel 2:28-29) at all even though Peter said it was.This is indeed what you are doing. You have yet to give an explaination for how, in your view, Joel meant "before" when he said "after." Until you do, you don't have a leg to stand on.


Actually, my issue with your interpretation is due to you not accepting that "this" (outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost) referred to "that" prophecy from Joel 2, as I explained above.If that is what you think, then you misunderstood my explanation.


I definitely believe that's what you're doing by saying "this" is not "that" even though Peter said it was.Again, I never said "this" is not "that". Go back and read my explanation. But you are saying "after" means "before."


How does "this is that" turn into "this is something like what Joel prophesied, but has nothing specifically to do with what he prophesied"? Come on.
I explained this already. Don't confuse your incredulity as a rebuttal.


No, he was saying that was the beginning of the fulfillment. People are still calling upon the name of the Lord and being saved today (Joel 2:32 - Acts 2:21).Now you are adding to what Peter said. Where did he say, "this is the beginning of the fulfillment?" He didn't. Your interpretation needs to add "this is the beginning" as a patchwork "fix" in order to account for the fact that Pentecost did not see the sun darkened, moon turned into blood, blood, smoke, or Day of the Lord. And, even if we assume that the Day of the Lord came in 70AD, Joel places the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on "all flesh" AFTER the Day of the Lord, not BEFORE. So, you see, your interpretation is wrong on three counts: 1) The celestial events did not accompany Pentecost. 2) The outpouring was to happen AFTER the Day of the Lord, and 3) the outpouring was to happen on ALL flesh.

Why not accept the evidence, admit you are wrong and let's move on to the true understanding of what is going to happen?

Nihil Obstat
Mar 6th 2010, 06:38 PM
So, you see, your interpretation is wrong on three counts: 1) The celestial events did not accompany Pentecost. 2) The outpouring was to happen AFTER the Day of the Lord, and 3) the outpouring was to happen on ALL flesh.

Why not accept the evidence, admit you are wrong and let's move on to the true understanding of what is going to happen?

In short, Peter's point in his explanation of Joel 2 is this: The judgment meted out upon Jesus when he died upon a tree was the Day of the Lord. This sufficiently explains your three questions.

Sirus
Mar 6th 2010, 06:44 PM
You completely misunderstand how the term “for ever” can be used in Holy Writ. It is not always used in an unlimited and "forever" sense. God told the Hebrew nation that circumcision was an “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:13) just as He said the Mosaical system had an “everlasting priesthood” (Numbers 25:13) but these “shadows” of thing to come passed away when the entire Mosaical system was nailed to the cross of Christ, i.e., they were not to last ‘fore ever’ they were fulfilled and were annulled when that which was Perfect came. The term “for ever” often times has a temporary significance in the Bible.Yes, I'm quite aware of this.


This is clearly seen in the “land promised” to the Israelites. The promise was a *conditional promise* - it was conditioned on the fidelity of the Jews to God’s requirements. As already mentioned – God delivered ALL of the land promised to the Israelites and they occupied that land just as God had promised them. But through rebellion and unbelief the nation of Israel rejected her promised Messiah and 'God destroyed them from off the good land which He gave them'.Correct.


There is no future land promise awaiting the Jewish people – they have forfeited their deed to the land of promise.
Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come on you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring on you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you (Joshua 23:15-16).
Where does it say "they have forfeited"?

There remains only one hope for Jews today – the hope found in the blood of Jesus Christ as presented in the gospel of grace.Amen!


Any other hope including a future land hope is nothing more than a *false hope*.For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God to salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Rom 1:16, AKJV)Sorry but Jesus is returning to rule and reign and His government will never end. You are not going to float around on clouds playing a harp, eating fruit, and sipping the water of life forever. Heaven is the earth. The kingdom of heaven.

Deu 4:40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

kay-gee
Mar 6th 2010, 07:27 PM
Poor old apostle Peter. Gotta tell you...he must be the most mis-understood guy in history. Must have had really bad communication skills.

Here he is on the Day of Pentecost, with the keys to the kingdom, about to usher in the church age, the most imortant event in human history. What does he do? He goes into some discourse about some future event that has nothing to do with anybody there, listening to him. Making Quotes from Joel about something thousands years away.

He tells everyone what they must do to be saved (Acts 2:38) then for centuries, Christians fight tooth and nail to prove That he did not mean it.

Makes the same mistake again at the house of Cornelius, commanding the wrong baptism. Really batting zero

Later he writes in an epistle about baptism. We fight bitterly to prove he didn't mean it either.

Now, if this isn't misguided enough, he next turns to making prophetic announcements. He says far out things like...the heavens and earth or going to pass a way with a roar...the elements melt away with intense heat...all the works therein burned up. Good thing we have the modern day prophecy people to set the record straight for us. That we are here to live forever in this earthly paradise!

Wow!

all the best...

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 08:09 PM
In short, Peter's point in his explanation of Joel 2 is this: The judgment meted out upon Jesus when he died upon a tree was the Day of the Lord. This sufficiently explains your three questions.

Okay, why did Paul say the Day of the Lord hadn't happened yet? :)

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 08:11 PM
Poor old apostle Peter. Gotta tell you...he must be the most mis-understood guy in history. Must have had really bad communication skills.

Here he is on the Day of Pentecost, with the keys to the kingdom, about to usher in the church age, the most imortant event in human history. What does he do? He goes into some discourse about some future event that has nothing to do with anybody there, listening to him. Making Quotes from Joel about something thousands years away.

He tells everyone what they must do to be saved (Acts 2:38) then for centuries, Christians fight tooth and nail to prove That he did not mean it.

Makes the same mistake again at the house of Cornelius, commanding the wrong baptism. Really batting zero

Later he writes in an epistle about baptism. We fight bitterly to prove he didn't mean it either.

Now, if this isn't misguided enough, he next turns to making prophetic announcements. He says far out things like...the heavens and earth or going to pass a way with a roar...the elements melt away with intense heat...all the works therein burned up. Good thing we have the modern day prophecy people to set the record straight for us. That we are here to live forever in this earthly paradise!

Wow!

all the best...You can jest all you want. But unless you have an explanation for Joel, you're just expressing contempt and not adding anything to the discussion or our understanding.

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 08:19 PM
This is clearly seen in the “land promised” to the Israelites. The promise was a *conditional promise* - it was conditioned on the fidelity of the Jews to God’s requirements. As already mentioned – God delivered ALL of the land promised to the Israelites and they occupied that land just as God had promised them. But through rebellion and unbelief the nation of Israel rejected her promised Messiah and 'God destroyed them from off the good land which He gave them'. There is no future land promise awaiting the Jewish people – they have forfeited their deed to the land of promise.This is a common misconception among Christians. The land was not promised to Israel. The land was promised to Abraham. The Covenant at Mt. Sinai was not a promise to own the land; it was a promise to live on the land. Exile, not forfeiture, was the punishment for not keeping the covenant. The first exile, known as the Babylonian Captivity, lasted only 70 years. After that, the people returned. The second, great exile, known as the Great Tribulation, has lasted until 1948 when God resurrected the nation of Israel, brought the people back to the land again. According to both Jesus and Joel, there will never be another exile again.

RogerW
Mar 6th 2010, 09:22 PM
In short, Peter's point in his explanation of Joel 2 is this: The judgment meted out upon Jesus when he died upon a tree was the Day of the Lord. This sufficiently explains your three questions.


Okay, why did Paul say the Day of the Lord hadn't happened yet? :)

Because the day of the Lord is not a single day, it is a period of time; i.e. the whole NT age. Therefore the day of the Lord commenced with Christ and will end on A SPECIFIC DAY, when He returns. So the day of the Lord has come, it simply has not come to fulfillment yet.

Many Blessings,
RW

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 10:04 PM
This is a common misconception among Christians. The land was not promised to Israel. The land was promised to Abraham. The Covenant at Mt. Sinai was not a promise to own the land; it was a promise to live on the land. Exile, not forfeiture, was the punishment for not keeping the covenant. The first exile, known as the Babylonian Captivity, lasted only 70 years. After that, the people returned. The second, great exile, known as the Great Tribulation, has lasted until 1948 when God resurrected the nation of Israel, brought the people back to the land again. According to both Jesus and Joel, there will never be another exile again.
Actually my friend the land promise made by the Eternal to Abraham was made *unto Abraham’s seed*…“Unto thy seed will I give this land” (Genesis 12:7). This promise was made via the patriarchs to Abraham’s physical seed – the nation of Israel. The truth remains - God’s promise was *conditional* and God fulfilled His promise. The Israelites occupied all the land God had promised them. The nation of Israel (save the remnant) rebelled against God and rejected her promised Messiah. They broke their covenant with God and 'God destroyed them from off the good land which He gave them'. There is no future land promise awaiting the Jewish people.

The kingdom of God today is not about land and temples made with hands. You and others on this thread operate under the same grand delusion as the Jews in Jesus' day - you seek a material kingdom with a physical army to destroy God's enemies but search as you may you will not find it - the kingdom of God is in your midst as I type this post...
"The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." ~ Luke 17:20-21

BroRog
Mar 6th 2010, 10:08 PM
Actually my friend the land promise made by the Eternal to Abraham was made *unto Abraham’s seed*…“Unto thy seed will I give this land” (Genesis 12:7). This promise was made via the patriarchs to Abraham’s physical seed – the nation of Israel. The truth remains - God’s promise was *conditional* and God fulfilled His promise. The Israelites occupied all the land God had promised them. The nation of Israel (save the remnant) rebelled against God and rejected her promised Messiah. They broke their covenant with God and 'God destroyed them from off the good land which He gave them'. There is no future land promise awaiting the Jewish people.

The kingdom of God today is not about land and temples made with hands. You and others on this thread operate under the same grand delusion as the Jews in Jesus' day - you seek a material kingdom with a physical army to destroy God's enemies but search as you may you will not find it - the kingdom of God is in your midst as I type this post...
"The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." ~ Luke 17:20-21You simply repeated what you said before and ignored what I said. Wouldn't you find this discouraging, frustrating, and boring? I do.

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 10:10 PM
You simply repeated what you said before and ignored what I said. Wouldn't you find this discouraging, frustrating, and boring? I do.
Your point remains what it is - a boringly moot point.

losthorizon
Mar 6th 2010, 10:15 PM
I do not agree that Pentecost was a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-28 for the reasons I already presented.
Okay but your reasons remain weak.

kay-gee
Mar 6th 2010, 11:31 PM
[QUOTE]You can jest all you want. But unless you have an explanation for Joel, you're just expressing contempt and not adding anything to the discussion or our understanding.[QUOTE]


OK...you caught me. I was being a little facetious but doing so to try to make a point. Peter said that Pauls writings were sometimes difficult to understand. (2Peter 3:16) Peter is a simple direct speaker yet men stumble on much of what he teaches.

For example...the beginning of the sermon at Pentecost...Peter says (Acts 2:16) very CLEARLY (or else Luke simplified it for us as he wrote Acts) at any rate it says...but this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel. What did he mean? Look at the word "but"... that means back up a verse. It was in response to the accusation of early mornng drunkeness. The spirit had been pored out. Then he continues. He preaches that Christ is the Messiah and that all has been fulfilled in Him.

Which part of this statement is giving all the trouble?

And folks have to stop being so woodenly literal on this stuff. This is where everything goes to pieces for the Bible student.

C'mon BroRog...The sun isnt going to stop shining. The moon isn't going to turn to blood. Surely you and I know that. If the sun were to literally burn out, there will be NO human life, let alone some tribulation period and a enmasse Jewish conversion! These things are symbols that Jews would have understood at that time. He continued to preach right through to verse 37. The audience appeared to be with him and understanding his words because they were "pricked to the heart."

I've seen you even use verse 21 yourself in other threads. Paul uses it in Romans 10:13. I assume you agree with the statement. Would you not agree that this statement is in force today? I mean...why would Paul use it in his epistle if it were not in force yet?

Rejoice in Christ our saviour. Nation Israel is through!

all the best...

Nihil Obstat
Mar 7th 2010, 06:34 AM
Okay, why did Paul say the Day of the Lord hadn't happened yet?

You'll have to prove that there's only one Day of the Lord in all of history. Because I see the Prophets calling God's judgment upon Israel via Assyria "the Day of the Lord", via Babylon "the Day of the Lord", and via Rome "the Day of the Lord" - as well as His judgment upon Gentile nations such as Edom, Babylon, etc. When Jesus took God's judgment upon all nations upon Himself, it's not surprising that His crucifixion was recognized as "the Day of the Lord" as well.

BroRog
Mar 7th 2010, 08:53 PM
You'll have to prove that there's only one Day of the Lord in all of history. Because I see the Prophets calling God's judgment upon Israel via Assyria "the Day of the Lord", via Babylon "the Day of the Lord", and via Rome "the Day of the Lord" - as well as His judgment upon Gentile nations such as Edom, Babylon, etc. When Jesus took God's judgment upon all nations upon Himself, it's not surprising that His crucifixion was recognized as "the Day of the Lord" as well.

Well, I know what you are saying and I have no objection to it. Obviously there was more than one Day of the Lord throughout history. In fact there are two days of the Lord in the prophet Joel. :)

I must say, however, that I have been very frustrated and disheartened the last couple of days. It's like we are trying to put together one of those 1,000 piece puzzles. And just as soon as I complete a good portion of the puzzle, someone comes along, removes one of the pieces, cuts off one of the tabs and places the piece in a new spot. And I'm shouting at the screen, "Noooo .... you can't do that! We can't just cut off the tabs to make the pieces fit!"

Last week you asked me to help you explain why God would bring Israel back to life after 1880 years or so. I considered your question for a few hours and tried to present an answer (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?203795-Israel&p=2359458#post2359458) from the prophet Joel, a prophet that we rarely see mentioned in these discussions, in hopes of coming at the question afresh and from another angle. In fact, it was my personal study of Joel that fixed my view of the end times because Joel gives our puzzle pieces those tabs I was talking about. That is, Joel's prophecy provides a sequence of events, which can't be rearranged, giving us a firm framework on which to hang the rest of the prophetic picture as it concerns Israel.

The pivotal verses in Joel are those which use the phrase "never again", which I take literally. We can identify many occasions and events in Israel's history in which she deserved rebuke and criticism, and moments of shame. God, however, predicts that someday Israel will "never again" deserve rebuke. This new condition of Israel in which she will never again deserve rebuke becomes a fixed milepost in her history (future.)

In my post to Eric, I said that Pentecost did not fulfill Joel's prophecy for three reasons. 1) The celestial events did not accompany Pentecost. 2) The outpouring was to happen AFTER the Day of the Lord, and 3) the outpouring was to happen on ALL flesh. I now regret such an incomplete summary. I had hoped that everyone had read my lengthy post to you in which I went into more detail, and that such an abbreviated summary would suffice. I only wish everyone would review the entire book of Joel and become familiar with the outline of the prophecy.

The prophecy begins with this statement,



The word of the LORD that came to Joel, the son of Pethuel:
Hear this, O elders, and listen, all inhabitants of the land
Has anything like this happened in your days or in your fathers' days?
Tell your sons about it, and let your sons tell their sons,
And their sons the next generation.We learn from the first line, that the prophecy that follows will not take place in the prophet's day. The events will take place in the far future such that in each subsequent generation the fathers will tell their sons about it, and the sons will tell their sons etc.

The prophet announces that God will send locusts on the land that will cause the land to be barren, not being able to feed man and beast. By the time we get to chapter 2, his imagery changes to an unstoppable army, marching on the land to destroy everything in its path like a fire raging through a forest. Whether this describes an actual locust plague or a human army the ultimate effect is the same: complete and utter food famine. The land is totally devastated. This famine event is designated as a "Day of the Lord" in Joel 2:10-11 in which we also see celestial signs.



Before them the earth quakes,
The heavens tremble,
The sun and the moon grow dark
And the stars lose their brightness.
The LORD utters His voice before His army;
Surely His camp is very great,
For strong is he who carries out His word
The day of the LORD is indeed great and very awesome,
And who can endure it?

Let's assume for the moment that this particular "Day of the Lord" describes the Roman armies who came into Judea and completely devastated the land in both 70AD and 132AD.

Sometime after these events in which an army devastates the land,


(T)he LORD will be zealous for His land and will have pity on His people. He will make up for all that the Locusts have eaten, restoring the land back to a land of plenty. He will also remove all the foreign armies from Israel. And because God has done these two things, restored the land to plenty, and removed all foriegn armies from her land, Israel will finally know that the Lord is God. And once this takes place,



Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel,
And that I am the LORD your God,
And there is no other;
And My people will never be put to shame. This phrase, "never be put to shame" becomes a significant milepost in the sequence of events. Every event or circumstance that causes Israel shame, comes before this point. After this point, Israel will never have a reason for shame again.

The crucifixion of the Messiah was certainly a reason for Israel to feel ashamed. And so we place the crucifixion of Jesus in sequence prior to Joel 2:27. Israel's defeat at the hands of the Romans was certainly a cause of shame; being killed and taken captive was certainly a cause of shame; and the devastation of the land, causing it to uninhabitable was also a cause of shame for Israel and her people. And so all of these things belong in sequence BEFORE Joel 2:27. After Joel 2:27, Israel will ever again be put to shame.

We set the sequence of events in terms of the major milestone. Everything that could cause Israel shame before God and reproach among the nations comes prior to Joel 2:27, "My people will never be put to shame." After that point in her history, nothing will cause her shame before God or a reproach among the nations. Therefore we must place the following items prior to Joel 2:27.

1. Babylonian captivity.
2. Maccabees wars.
3. Greek rule.
4. Roman rule.
5. Crucifixion of Jesus.
6. Roman wars.
7. Exile into the world.
8. Devastation of the land.
9. Persecution among the nations.
10. Pogroms and Holocaust.

All of this must be placed in sequence before Joel 2:27, since Israel will never again be put to shame after Joel 2:27.

Then, after all the devastation, after all the famine and destruction, after all the things that brought a reproach upon Israel, after that time in Israel's future when God restores the land, giving her people plenty to eat to be satisfied, and after her people finally mourn and repent and acknowledge that the LORD is God and there is no other -- after all of that, God will pour out his spirit on all Jewish flesh.



It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

Though Peter associates Pentecost with Joel 2:28-29, we must understand that the actual events described in Joel 2:28-29 come after the significant milestone of Joel 2:27 in which Israel will never be put to shame or suffer a reason to be reproved among the nations. This particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit comes in sequence after the milestone of Joel 2:27.

Not only this, but the Joel says that this particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit will be on ALL flesh, which was not true for Pentecost and following.

I said that Joel mentions two days of the Lord. The first one was found in Joel 2:11, prior to the milestone of Joel 2:27. The second one comes AFTER the milestone of Joel 2:27 found in Joel 3:14, at which time God will meet the surrounding nations in the "Valley of decision" to judge the rest of the nations there.

losthorizon
Mar 8th 2010, 02:39 AM
I must say, however, that I have been very frustrated and disheartened the last couple of days. It's like we are trying to put together one of those 1,000 piece puzzles. And just as soon as I complete a good portion of the puzzle, someone comes along, removes one of the pieces, cuts off one of the tabs and places the piece in a new spot. And I'm shouting at the screen, "Noooo .... you can't do that! We can't just cut off the tabs to make the pieces fit!"


Rog – I think your frustration comes from your own attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. The nation of Israel rejected her promised Messiah and for that reason God took the kingdom away from her forever. The church of God (Jew and Gentile) is now God’s chosen people and this will be true until time ends at the last trump.
Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits. And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Mat 21:43-44 MKJV)There is no future land promise for the Jews and there is no future Jewish theocracy – God only has one holy nation and that holy nation will never again be the physical nation of Israel. You need to re-think.

Sirus
Mar 8th 2010, 04:06 AM
Rog – I think your frustration comes from your own attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. The nation of Israel rejected her promised Messiah and for that reason God took the kingdom away from her forever. The church of God (Jew and Gentile) is now God’s chosen people and this will be true until time ends at the last trump.
Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits. And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Mat 21:43-44 MKJV)There is no future land promise for the Jews and there is no future Jewish theocracy – God only has one holy nation and that holy nation will never again be the physical nation of Israel. You need to re-think.The nation of Israel rejected God many times. How was this time different? The kingdom of God is not land. Let me say that again.....The kingdom of God is not land. He did not take the land from them. He took His spiritual kingdom from them. Look up "abraham covenant" and see how God remembers it, because God is not unrighteous to break a covenant.

losthorizon
Mar 8th 2010, 04:26 AM
The nation of Israel rejected God many times. How was this time different?


They rejected their promised Messiah and sent Him to the cross.
And they said again loudly, To the cross with him! Mark 15:13

The kingdom of God is not land. Let me say that again.....The kingdom of God is not land.

The kingdom and the land promise were taken from the nation of Israel. God's covenant was a conditional covenant. God gave the Israelites all the land promised and they occupied all the land. Through unbelief they forfeited their right to the land. Let me repeat they forfeited their right to the land and it was taken from them.

Sirus
Mar 8th 2010, 04:34 AM
They rejected their promised Messiah and sent Him to the cross.
And they said again loudly, To the cross with him! Mark 15:13How was this different?


The kingdom and the land promise were taken from the nation of Israel. God's covenant was a conditional covenant. God gave the Israelites all the land promised and they occupied all the land. Through unbelief they forfeited their right to the land. Let me repeat they forfeited their right to the land and it was taken from them.Where does it say the land was taken from them? Where does it say they forfeited their right to it?

Sorry but this is all you, not Bible. You've not provided one verse.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 8th 2010, 05:57 AM
Rog – I think your frustration comes from your own attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. The nation of Israel rejected her promised Messiah and for that reason God took the kingdom away from her forever. The church of God (Jew and Gentile) is now God’s chosen people and this will be true until time ends at the last trump.
Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits. And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Mat 21:43-44 MKJV)There is no future land promise for the Jews and there is no future Jewish theocracy – God only has one holy nation and that holy nation will never again be the physical nation of Israel. You need to re-think.

I disagree with Roger's position about Israel's future, but I disagree with yours about their past. Something that needs to be emphasized is that Gentiles have always been allowed into the Jewish congregation, though it had always been by becoming physically circumcised and observing what all the Jews were commanded to observe. So the new thing with the "church" is not that Gentiles have come into Israel. It's that we have come in apart from physical circumcision. Who did we come into, according to Paul? Into Israel. Well, that does us no good if God has taken away from Israel the kingdom - we would have come into a desolate heritage! No, rather, we have come into the faithful remnant of Israel.

This is why I believe, with Paul and Peter, that Israel's expectations and hopes had come by way of Jesus' first coming. Apostate Israel does not have some special future foretold in the Prophets awaiting fulfillment, but nor was Israel divested of all her promises in the first century. Jesus, in Matt. 21:43-44, is speaking of the "one-new-man" nation who gathers around the unshakable Mount Zion that will receive the kingdom, who is Israel, now reconstituted from around the law to around the Law-giver, who are now atoned not by animals through priests who die, but by Jesus' blood who also is our everlasting High Priest.

The purpose of the gospel accounts is to testify that in the crucifying of Jesus of Nazareth and His subsequent resurrection and ascension, the new creation has come.

Sirus
Mar 8th 2010, 06:04 AM
Who did we come into, according to Paul? Into Israel.where did he say that? Please don't say Romans 11.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 8th 2010, 06:23 AM
where did he say that? Please don't say Romans 11.

If you don't see it in Romans 11, then look to Ephesians 2:11 ff. There is no denying this.

Sirus
Mar 8th 2010, 06:38 AM
If you don't see it in Romans 11, then look to Ephesians 2:11 ff. There is no denying this.No I don't see it Romans 11 and Ephesians 2:11 ff definitely is not related. It's easy to deny seeing salvation is the root's not Israel's. How could we be grafted in to what has been broken off? :idea:

Nihil Obstat
Mar 8th 2010, 10:01 AM
No I don't see it Romans 11 and Ephesians 2:11 ff definitely is not related. It's easy to deny seeing salvation is the root's not Israel's. How could we be grafted in to what has been broken off? :idea:

Paul does not say that Israel has been broken off. He says that unbelieving Israel has been cut off. His point is that we have been grafted into the faithful remnant of Israel. Again, Paul goes to great lengths to make this clear, so I'm not sure how you came to see Rom. 11 as saying that Israel as a whole has been cast away.

RogerW
Mar 8th 2010, 01:51 PM
I disagree with Roger's position about Israel's future, but I disagree with yours about their past. Something that needs to be emphasized is that Gentiles have always been allowed into the Jewish congregation, though it had always been by becoming physically circumcised and observing what all the Jews were commanded to observe. So the new thing with the "church" is not that Gentiles have come into Israel. It's that we have come in apart from physical circumcision. Who did we come into, according to Paul? Into Israel. Well, that does us no good if God has taken away from Israel the kingdom - we would have come into a desolate heritage! No, rather, we have come into the faithful remnant of Israel.

Hi Astro,

Yes we have come into the faithful remnant of Israel, and indeed are called the Israel of God. But since our heritage is not desolate, and ethnic Israel certainly has been left desolate forever, there is now no difference between Jew and Gentile in Christ. And in Christ, members of His body, the church, we are called Christians, not Israel. Why carry the name Israel since Israel is an ethnic people, under the law, but we (Christians; bride/body of Christ) are people from every nation of the world?



This is why I believe, with Paul and Peter, that Israel's expectations and hopes had come by way of Jesus' first coming. Apostate Israel does not have some special future foretold in the Prophets awaiting fulfillment, but nor was Israel divested of all her promises in the first century. Jesus, in Matt. 21:43-44, is speaking of the "one-new-man" nation who gathers around the unshakable Mount Zion that will receive the kingdom, who is Israel, now reconstituted from around the law to around the Law-giver, who are now atoned not by animals through priests who die, but by Jesus' blood who also is our everlasting High Priest.

If the kingdom of God was taken from ethnic Israel, and given to a nation (Christians) who would bring forth fruits, why would Christians be called after the name of an ethnic nation, who rejected Christ and were left desolate? Are we (believers) not now called after the name of Christ, having become members of His body and His bride?



The purpose of the gospel accounts is to testify that in the crucifying of Jesus of Nazareth and His subsequent resurrection and ascension, the new creation has come.

Exactly! But the new creation is not a re-constituted Israel, it is a new beginning, called the Church.

2Co*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.

Col*1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Many Blessings,
RW

Nihil Obstat
Mar 8th 2010, 02:29 PM
... And in Christ, members of His body, the church, we are called Christians, not Israel. Why carry the name Israel since Israel is an ethnic people, under the law, but we (Christians; bride/body of Christ) are people from every nation of the world? ... If the kingdom of God was taken from ethnic Israel, and given to a nation (Christians) who would bring forth fruits, why would Christians be called after the name of an ethnic nation, who rejected Christ and were left desolate? Are we (believers) not now called after the name of Christ, having become members of His body and His bride? ... Exactly! But the new creation is not a re-constituted Israel, it is a new beginning, called the Church.

The kingdom was not taken from "ethnic" Israel. It was taken from the Israelites who rejected God's means of bringing about the restoration of all things - a crucified life (for reigning with God is joyous self-sacrifice). It was given to the faithful remnant of ethnic Israel. At first, the only non-ethnic Jews in the renewed Spirit-filled Israel were proselytes (circumcised, converted Gentiles). It was not until Acts 10 - several years after Acts 2 - that the first non-circumcised Gentiles were grafted into the renewed Israel. The word "church" is the same word used for "congregation" when speaking of Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:38 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Act&c=7&v=38&t=KJV#conc/38); cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%2010:1-15&version=NASB)). We see then that there ought to be no distinction between the true Israel of God (those whose mother is the Jerusalem above) and the "church".

BroRog
Mar 8th 2010, 03:43 PM
Rog – I think your frustration comes from your own attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole. The nation of Israel rejected her promised Messiah and for that reason God took the kingdom away from her forever. The church of God (Jew and Gentile) is now God’s chosen people and this will be true until time ends at the last trump.
Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits. And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Mat 21:43-44 MKJV)There is no future land promise for the Jews and there is no future Jewish theocracy – God only has one holy nation and that holy nation will never again be the physical nation of Israel. You need to re-think.Let's deal with the passage you cited first. Did God take the kingdom away from Israel according to Matthew 21:43-44?



"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. Matthew 21:43-46
In this, we understand that the Father was not taking the kingdom away from Israel per se; he was taking the kingdom away from the chief priests and Pharisees and giving it to Jesus and his apostles.

Secondly, the kingdom of God and the nation of Israel are two different things. To confuse the two will lead naturally to the conclusion that all the OT prophets were false prophets.

John146
Mar 8th 2010, 08:15 PM
You can't get around it like that. Either God hasn't finished with his people or he has. Either Israel is important or it isn't. Paul says God hasn't finished with Israel. That means something will happen in the future of paticular significance to the Jews. I'm not trying to get around anything. I'm pointing out what scripture also points out: God hasn't finished with any people group. He doesn't show favoritism to anyone because of nationality. That's what scripture teaches:

Acts 10
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


God's people are those who believe, of course. But you can't deny God has set aside the Jewish race as his people from the beginning. Ok they may not be saved (yet!!), but God still loves them and wants to bless them, so in that sense they are his people. Does He love them and want to bless them more than people of other races or nationalities?


That's simple! Joshua took the promised land.Was it an everlasting possession of the land? Wasn't God promising Abraham more than just that piece of land? Why else was Abraham looking for a heavenly city and country whose builder and maker is God (Heb 11:8-16)?

John146
Mar 8th 2010, 08:28 PM
This is indeed what you are doing. You have yet to give an explaination for how, in your view, Joel meant "before" when he said "after." Until you do, you don't have a leg to stand on.I have Acts 2:16-21 to stand on, which is apparently a lot more than you have to stand on. Peter said "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" and you are changing it to "this is like that, but not actually that which was written by the prophet Joel".


Again, I never said "this" is not "that". Go back and read my explanation. But you are saying "after" means "before."You are saying that "this" does not at all refer to what was happening on the day of Pentecost, are you not? I'm not saying "after" means "before" at all.


Now you are adding to what Peter said. Where did he say, "this is the beginning of the fulfillment?" He didn't. Your interpretation needs to add "this is the beginning" as a patchwork "fix" in order to account for the fact that Pentecost did not see the sun darkened, moon turned into blood, blood, smoke, or Day of the Lord. And, even if we assume that the Day of the Lord came in 70AD, Joel places the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on "all flesh" AFTER the Day of the Lord, not BEFORE. So, you see, your interpretation is wrong on three counts: 1) The celestial events did not accompany Pentecost.My interpretation does not claim that all of Joel 2:28-32 was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, so you are wrong.


2) The outpouring was to happen AFTER the Day of the Lord,Where are you getting this from?


and 3) the outpouring was to happen on ALL flesh. Not literally all flesh. All flesh who believed. Why would the Holy Spirit ever be poured out on unbelievers? The pouring out of the Holy Spirit is directly related to receiving the Holy Spirit, which only happens to those who believe:

John 7
37In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)


Why not accept the evidence, admit you are wrong and let's move on to the true understanding of what is going to happen?LOL!!! The only thing I will admit is that I disagree with you.

BroRog
Mar 8th 2010, 08:47 PM
I have Acts 2:16-21 to stand on, which is apparently a lot more than you have to stand on. Peter said "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" and you are changing it to "this is like that, but not actually that which was written by the prophet Joel".Well, "this is that" can mean "this is like that". :)


You are saying that "this" does not at all refer to what was happening on the day of Pentecost, are you not? I hear Peter saying that the two events are the same in kind.


Where are you getting this from?Refer to post #75


Not literally all flesh. All flesh who believed. Why would the Holy Spirit ever be poured out on unbelievers?The entire nation of Israel will believe at that time.


LOL!!! The only thing I will admit is that I disagree with you.So far, you haven't given an interpretation of Joel.

John146
Mar 8th 2010, 09:10 PM
Well, "this is that" can mean "this is like that". :) It can? Do you have any examples to support that claim? I find three other times where the phrase "this is that" is used in the NT (John 6:58, Acts 7:37 and 1 John 4:3) and six in the OT and it clearly doesn't mean "this is like that" in any of those verses.


The entire nation of Israel will believe at that time.Scripture doesn't teach that the entire nation of Israel will believe at any time.


So far, you haven't given an interpretation of Joel.I'm satisfied with Peter's interpretation. I have given an interpretation of Joel 2:28-32 that accepts Peter's explanation that this (the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost) was that which Joel prophesied would happen, which you deny. Since Joel spoke in terms of those things happening in "those days" it shows that on the day of Pentecost itself wasn't the entire fulfillment of the prophecy, but was the beginning.

BroRog
Mar 8th 2010, 10:10 PM
I'm satisfied with Peter's interpretation. I have given an interpretation of Joel 2:28-32 that accepts Peter's explanation that this (the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost) was that which Joel prophesied would happen, which you deny. Since Joel spoke in terms of those things happening in "those days" it shows that on the day of Pentecost itself wasn't the entire fulfillment of the prophecy, but was the beginning.Well, you simply have a particular understanding of what Peter meant to say. But you haven't yet presented your understanding of how those two verses from Joel fit into the rest of the book.

As for your objection that "this is that" can't mean "this is like that" I have already pointed out the fact that both of us, not just me, are attempting to account for the dissimilarities between the Joel account and the Pentecost event. I account for it by suggesting that Peter meant "this is like that" when he said "this is that", whereas you account for it by putting in Peter's mouth, "this is that except that it happened before, not after the return of the Jews back to the land; before, not after God devastated the land and subsequently revived it; except that it only applied to a few, not all of Israel's people, and except that it only just the beginning of the fulfillment and did not meet all the requirements and expectations of Joel, which by the way is what "fulfill" actually means. :) So, even in what you say, "this" isn't exactly "that." :)

divaD
Mar 9th 2010, 12:43 AM
Well, I know what you are saying and I have no objection to it. Obviously there was more than one Day of the Lord throughout history. In fact there are two days of the Lord in the prophet Joel. :)

I must say, however, that I have been very frustrated and disheartened the last couple of days. It's like we are trying to put together one of those 1,000 piece puzzles. And just as soon as I complete a good portion of the puzzle, someone comes along, removes one of the pieces, cuts off one of the tabs and places the piece in a new spot. And I'm shouting at the screen, "Noooo .... you can't do that! We can't just cut off the tabs to make the pieces fit!"

Last week you asked me to help you explain why God would bring Israel back to life after 1880 years or so. I considered your question for a few hours and tried to present an answer (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?203795-Israel&p=2359458#post2359458) from the prophet Joel, a prophet that we rarely see mentioned in these discussions, in hopes of coming at the question afresh and from another angle. In fact, it was my personal study of Joel that fixed my view of the end times because Joel gives our puzzle pieces those tabs I was talking about. That is, Joel's prophecy provides a sequence of events, which can't be rearranged, giving us a firm framework on which to hang the rest of the prophetic picture as it concerns Israel.

The pivotal verses in Joel are those which use the phrase "never again", which I take literally. We can identify many occasions and events in Israel's history in which she deserved rebuke and criticism, and moments of shame. God, however, predicts that someday Israel will "never again" deserve rebuke. This new condition of Israel in which she will never again deserve rebuke becomes a fixed milepost in her history (future.)

In my post to Eric, I said that Pentecost did not fulfill Joel's prophecy for three reasons. 1) The celestial events did not accompany Pentecost. 2) The outpouring was to happen AFTER the Day of the Lord, and 3) the outpouring was to happen on ALL flesh. I now regret such an incomplete summary. I had hoped that everyone had read my lengthy post to you in which I went into more detail, and that such an abbreviated summary would suffice. I only wish everyone would review the entire book of Joel and become familiar with the outline of the prophecy.

The prophecy begins with this statement,



The word of the LORD that came to Joel, the son of Pethuel:
Hear this, O elders, and listen, all inhabitants of the land
Has anything like this happened in your days or in your fathers' days?
Tell your sons about it, and let your sons tell their sons,
And their sons the next generation.We learn from the first line, that the prophecy that follows will not take place in the prophet's day. The events will take place in the far future such that in each subsequent generation the fathers will tell their sons about it, and the sons will tell their sons etc.

The prophet announces that God will send locusts on the land that will cause the land to be barren, not being able to feed man and beast. By the time we get to chapter 2, his imagery changes to an unstoppable army, marching on the land to destroy everything in its path like a fire raging through a forest. Whether this describes an actual locust plague or a human army the ultimate effect is the same: complete and utter food famine. The land is totally devastated. This famine event is designated as a "Day of the Lord" in Joel 2:10-11 in which we also see celestial signs.



Before them the earth quakes,
The heavens tremble,
The sun and the moon grow dark
And the stars lose their brightness.
The LORD utters His voice before His army;
Surely His camp is very great,
For strong is he who carries out His word
The day of the LORD is indeed great and very awesome,
And who can endure it?

Let's assume for the moment that this particular "Day of the Lord" describes the Roman armies who came into Judea and completely devastated the land in both 70AD and 132AD.

Sometime after these events in which an army devastates the land,


(T)he LORD will be zealous for His land and will have pity on His people. He will make up for all that the Locusts have eaten, restoring the land back to a land of plenty. He will also remove all the foreign armies from Israel. And because God has done these two things, restored the land to plenty, and removed all foriegn armies from her land, Israel will finally know that the Lord is God. And once this takes place,



Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel,
And that I am the LORD your God,
And there is no other;
And My people will never be put to shame. This phrase, "never be put to shame" becomes a significant milepost in the sequence of events. Every event or circumstance that causes Israel shame, comes before this point. After this point, Israel will never have a reason for shame again.

The crucifixion of the Messiah was certainly a reason for Israel to feel ashamed. And so we place the crucifixion of Jesus in sequence prior to Joel 2:27. Israel's defeat at the hands of the Romans was certainly a cause of shame; being killed and taken captive was certainly a cause of shame; and the devastation of the land, causing it to uninhabitable was also a cause of shame for Israel and her people. And so all of these things belong in sequence BEFORE Joel 2:27. After Joel 2:27, Israel will ever again be put to shame.

We set the sequence of events in terms of the major milestone. Everything that could cause Israel shame before God and reproach among the nations comes prior to Joel 2:27, "My people will never be put to shame." After that point in her history, nothing will cause her shame before God or a reproach among the nations. Therefore we must place the following items prior to Joel 2:27.

1. Babylonian captivity.
2. Maccabees wars.
3. Greek rule.
4. Roman rule.
5. Crucifixion of Jesus.
6. Roman wars.
7. Exile into the world.
8. Devastation of the land.
9. Persecution among the nations.
10. Pogroms and Holocaust.

All of this must be placed in sequence before Joel 2:27, since Israel will never again be put to shame after Joel 2:27.

Then, after all the devastation, after all the famine and destruction, after all the things that brought a reproach upon Israel, after that time in Israel's future when God restores the land, giving her people plenty to eat to be satisfied, and after her people finally mourn and repent and acknowledge that the LORD is God and there is no other -- after all of that, God will pour out his spirit on all Jewish flesh.



It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

Though Peter associates Pentecost with Joel 2:28-29, we must understand that the actual events described in Joel 2:28-29 come after the significant milestone of Joel 2:27 in which Israel will never be put to shame or suffer a reason to be reproved among the nations. This particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit comes in sequence after the milestone of Joel 2:27.

Not only this, but the Joel says that this particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit will be on ALL flesh, which was not true for Pentecost and following.

I said that Joel mentions two days of the Lord. The first one was found in Joel 2:11, prior to the milestone of Joel 2:27. The second one comes AFTER the milestone of Joel 2:27 found in Joel 3:14, at which time God will meet the surrounding nations in the "Valley of decision" to judge the rest of the nations there.


Joel 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.

BroRog, if I'm understanding you correctly, this is a future event and occurs after the day of the Lord, correct?

Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:


And then this occurs afterwards, correct? After the day of the Lord, correct?

You also stated that there are 2 days of the Lord recorded in Joel, and that they're not the same, correct? Joel 2:11 and Joel 3:14, correct?

If this is all correct so far, then I'm assuming you are referring to the day of the Lord in Joel 2:11 as occuring before verse 27, with verse 28 occuring afterward.

Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

But what about the day of the Lord in this verse? Which day of the Lord is it pointing to? The one recorded in Joel 2:11, or the one recorded in Joel 3:14?

If it's the former, then what is recorded in Joel 2:28-31 has to occur first, meaning prior to the day of the Lord, because verse 31 implies these other things must happen first, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD can come. My point being...if the day of the Lord occurs before Joel 2:27, and if Joel 2:28-31 occurs after verse 27, and if the day of the Lord in verse 31 is pointing back to verse 11, then how can all this be?

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 12:48 AM
I disagree with Roger's position about Israel's future, but I disagree with yours about their past. Something that needs to be emphasized is that Gentiles have always been allowed into the Jewish congregation, though it had always been by becoming physically circumcised and observing what all the Jews were commanded to observe. So the new thing with the "church" is not that Gentiles have come into Israel. It's that we have come in apart from physical circumcision. Who did we come into, according to Paul? Into Israel. Well, that does us no good if God has taken away from Israel the kingdom - we would have come into a desolate heritage! No, rather, we have come into the faithful remnant of Israel.


I am not sure exactly where you are coming from and where you are going with your thinking above friend and I do not want to misrepresent your position. Maybe you can expound and expand a bit. According to the NT the church of Jesus Christ (the body of Christ) did not exist prior to the first Pentecost after the Lord's resurrection and those who were added to that body by God were those who were born again...”unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). The believing Jew (Jewish remnant) and the believing Gentile become one “in Christ” in the church of God. Jesus told the nation of Israel the kingdom of God would be taken away from them and given to a new holy nation because of Israel's unbelief and rejection of her promised Messiah.
Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits. And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Mat 21:43-44 MKJV)This pronouncement by the Lord became the “death-knell of the Jewish nation” and it was fulfilled when God used the Roman legions under Titus to sack Jerusalem and destroy the temple (70AD). God’s word tells us the holy nation of God today is the church of God not the disbelieving secular nation of Israel. God only has *one holy nation* and it is made up of those Jews and Gentiles who call on the name of the Lord – the Israel of God - and this spiritual nation will exist until the Lord returns and delivers up the kingdom to God.
Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Corinthians 15:24-26 ESV)The physical nation of Israel will never again be God's holy nation.

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 01:00 AM
How was this different?


As stated - the Jews as a nation rejected their promised Messiah and sent Him to the cross. Because of this the kingdom of God was taken from them and they lost their land grant.


Where does it say the land was taken from them?
I have already provided the scripture but let me provide it one more time...
Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come on you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring on you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you (Joshua 23:15-16).
Let me know if you do not understand the phrase, "destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you" and we can go over it again and again.

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 01:10 AM
In this, we understand that the Father was not taking the kingdom away from Israel per se; he was taking the kingdom away from the chief priests and Pharisees and giving it to Jesus and his apostles.


God was speaking to the "chief priests and Pharisees" as the legal representatives of the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel as a whole (save the remnant) rejected her promised Messiah and the physical nation of Israel ceased to be God's *holy nation* forever. God's holy nation from the apostolic era until today and from today until He comes again was, is and shall be the church of God - the Israel of God on earth.


Secondly, the kingdom of God and the nation of Israel are two different things.

And this is what I have stated all along Rog - the kingdom of God was taken away from physical Israel and given to a new holy nation - the church of God.

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 01:22 AM
Well, you simply have a particular understanding of what Peter meant to say. But you haven't yet presented your understanding of how those two verses from Joel fit into the rest of the book.


Rog - it is really hard to miss the point made by the inspired writer of Acts that the prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled on the day of Pentecost - this was just one more proof that Jesus - whom the Jews crucified - was their promised Messiah.

Sirus
Mar 9th 2010, 01:25 AM
Paul does not say that Israel has been broken off. He says that unbelieving Israel has been cut off. His point is that we have been grafted into the faithful remnant of Israel. Again, Paul goes to great lengths to make this clear, so I'm not sure how you came to see Rom. 11 as saying that Israel as a whole has been cast away.I didn't say all Israel was broken off or cast away. Why would I when the entirety of Scripture makes this abundantly clear?

You said we are grafted into Israel but it says we are grafted into the good olive tree.


Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
.......
Rom 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
He is talking about natural seed Israelite's


Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew.
So when the natural are "graffed into their own olive tree" their own is Christ, also a natural seed. We see this in Ephesians.


Eph 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
.......
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
It's the commonwealth of Israel, not Israel.
Strangers from the covenants of promise, not strangers to Israel.
It's fellowcitizens not citizens.
It's a household, temple, building, habitation of and in the Lord, not of and in Israel.
We are in Christ not in Israel.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2010, 01:49 AM
Joel 2:27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.

BroRog, if I'm understanding you correctly, this is a future event and occurs after the day of the Lord, correct?Yes.


Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:


And then this occurs afterwards, correct? After the day of the Lord, correct?Yes.


You also stated that there are 2 days of the Lord recorded in Joel, and that they're not the same, correct? Joel 2:11 and Joel 3:14, correct?Yes and yes.


If this is all correct so far, then I'm assuming you are referring to the day of the Lord in Joel 2:11 as occuring before verse 27, with verse 28 occuring afterward.

Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

But what about the day of the Lord in this verse? Which day of the Lord is it pointing to? The one recorded in Joel 2:11, or the one recorded in Joel 3:14?
Joel 3:14

Thanks David. I appreciate your questions.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2010, 01:52 AM
God was speaking to the "chief priests and Pharisees" as the legal representatives of the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel as a whole (save the remnant) rejected her promised Messiah and the physical nation of Israel ceased to be God's *holy nation* forever.I see no Biblical evidence for this. The physical nation of Israel will always be a holy nation. Romans 11:29

BroRog
Mar 9th 2010, 01:54 AM
Rog - it is really hard to miss the point made by the inspired writer of Acts that the prophecy of Joel was being fulfilled on the day of Pentecost - this was just one more proof that Jesus - whom the Jews crucified - was their promised Messiah.The point is, the inspired writer of Acts wasn't saying that Pentecost fulfilled Joel, for the reasons I already pointed out.

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 02:04 AM
I see no Biblical evidence for this. The physical nation of Israel will always be a holy nation. Romans 11:29
Then it is your position that the secular and unbelieving nation of Israel today - a nation who continues to reject the Messiahship of Jesus Christ - is God's holy nation? How can that be? Is the church of God not God's holy nation in your theology? How many holy nations does God have today - exactly? You may be confused.

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 02:06 AM
The point is, the inspired writer of Acts wasn't saying that Pentecost fulfilled Joel, for the reasons I already pointed out.
Yes he was saying exactly that just as he was moved by the Holy Spirit - your points remain weak and are in error.

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 02:10 AM
I see no Biblical evidence for this. The physical nation of Israel will always be a holy nation. Romans 11:29
It's there in black and white - the nation of Israel rejected her Messiah and God used the Roman legions to destroy that nation. Again - God's holy nation is not an unbelieving nation - God's holy nation is made up of those Jews and Gentiles who call upon the name of Jesus Christ - this eliminates the physical nation of Israel out of hand.

Sirus
Mar 9th 2010, 02:26 AM
As stated - the Jews as a nation rejected their promised Messiah and sent Him to the cross. Because of this the kingdom of God was taken from them and they lost their land grant. For the third time, the kingdom of God is not land.
The flesh profits nothing. How was this rejection different than before? There has always been a natural Israel believing remnant.


I have already provided the scripture but let me provide it one more time...
Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come on you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring on you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you (Joshua 23:15-16).
Let me know if you do not understand the phrase, "destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you" and we can go over it again and again.Tell me, which time? ...and why are they there today?


Jos 23:13 Know for a certainty that the LORD your God will no more drive out any of these nations from before you; but they shall be snares and traps unto you, and scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until ye perish from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Jos 23:14 And, behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.
Jos 23:15 Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Jos 23:16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.

divaD
Mar 9th 2010, 02:27 AM
You said we are grafted into Israel but it says we are grafted into the good olive tree.


Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;


Isn't it the Gentiles that make up the wild olive tree? If so, then who does that make that origonally makes up the good olive tree? How could it not be Israel, IOW the Jews? If the good olive tree had branches broken off, this doesn't change anything about the tree, because the tree still has it's roots. This means that the good olive tree will always be Israel, and that the Gentiles were grafted into it, not that they replaced the entire tree, nor made the tree into something other than it already was.

Sirus
Mar 9th 2010, 02:52 AM
It says right there "among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree". Do they partakest of the fatness of themselves? They are branches just as we are.

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 03:01 AM
For the third time, the kingdom of God is not land.


And one more time - no one is saying the kingdom of God is the land.


Tell me, which time?
Which time – what?


...and why are they there today?
For the same reason England and France are here today – God's will/God's plan – God is active in the affairs of men.

Sirus
Mar 9th 2010, 03:09 AM
Which time they were destroyed from off the good land constitutes the last time, and what makes you think they have passed the last time? You can't say because the kingdom of God was taken from them so what else do you have, other than personal opinion?

losthorizon
Mar 9th 2010, 03:42 AM
Which time they were destroyed from off the good land constitutes the last time, and what makes you think they have passed the last time? You can't say because the kingdom of God was taken from them so what else do you have, other than personal opinion?
I have the word of God. The nation of Israel rejected her Messiah – their place as a nation in God's plan has ended. There is no future land promise – there will be no future restoration of an imagined "Jewish theocracy" for God's purpose. God has a new holy nation - the church of God. The Lord's church consists of Jew and Gentile – the Israel of God today. God has no need for a physical nation to be His people any longer – the shadows of Judaism are gone forever – the Perfect has come in Jesus Christ. The kingdom of Christ is a spiritual kingdom in our midst today. You remain confused by your materialism.
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." (Luke 17:20-21 ESV)

divaD
Mar 9th 2010, 03:52 AM
It says right there "among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree". Do they partakest of the fatness of themselves? They are branches just as we are.



Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Are you suggesting that an olive tree can grow branches that are not even of the olive tree? If an apple tree brings forth apples, what makes the rest of the tree not an apple tree? Can a banana tree produce apples? If an apple tree produces branches with apples, then, if the natural branches of a good olive tree is Israel, then so is the good olive tree itself, it must also be Israel.

kay-gee
Mar 9th 2010, 04:24 AM
I see no Biblical evidence for this. The physical nation of Israel will always be a holy nation. Romans 11:29

Huh? How is a nation of dis-believers a Holy Nation?

Sorry, but that does even make common sense, much less biblical sense.

all the best...

Sirus
Mar 9th 2010, 04:44 AM
I have the word of God. The nation of Israel rejected her Messiah – their place as a nation in God's plan has ended. There is no future land promise – there will be no future restoration of an imagined "Jewish theocracy" for God's purpose. God has a new holy nation - the church of God. The Lord's church consists of Jew and Gentile – the Israel of God today. God has no need for a physical nation to be His people any longer – the shadows of Judaism are gone forever – the Perfect has come in Jesus Christ. The kingdom of Christ is a spiritual kingdom in our midst today. You remain confused by your materialism.
Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you." (Luke 17:20-21 ESV)You have your opinion of part of the word.
Yes, the kingdom of God is spiritual. That's why it is not land. Said that several times already.
Opinion -their place as a nation in God's plan has ended
Opinion -There is no future land promise [not needed because it never ceased]
Opinion -there will be no future restoration of an imagined "Jewish theocracy" for God's purpose.
You confuse the spiritual and natural -God has a new holy nation - the church of God. The Lord's church consists of Jew and Gentile – the Israel of God today.
Opinion -God has no need for a physical nation to be His people any longer
Where? and if this is it, what are we looking forward to? -the Perfect has come in Jesus Christ. The kingdom of Christ is a spiritual kingdom in our midst today.
You remain confused by your 'spiritualism' -You remain confused by your materialism [the resurrected spiritual/heavenly Lord was also flesh and bone (spiritual/physical). He is returning to set up His kingdom (spiritual/physical). It is not just spiritual]

Sirus
Mar 9th 2010, 04:53 AM
Are you suggesting that an olive tree can grow branches that are not even of the olive tree?Of course not......

divaD
Mar 9th 2010, 02:33 PM
Of course not......



Well I guess I'm just confused then. lol If the natural branches are Israel, then how can the good olive tree not also be Israel? If the Gentiles are grafted into the good olive tree, how can they not be grafted into Israel? If one were to cut off all the branches of an olive tree, does the olive tree then cease to be an olive tree?

BroRog
Mar 9th 2010, 03:19 PM
Then it is your position that the secular and unbelieving nation of Israel today - a nation who continues to reject the Messiahship of Jesus Christ - is God's holy nation?Yep.


How can that be?To be "holy" in this instance, means "to be set aside for a special purpose."


Is the church of God not God's holy nation in your theology?
Nope.


How many holy nations does God have today - exactly? You may be confused.There has always been one holy nation.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2010, 03:22 PM
Yes he was saying exactly that just as he was moved by the Holy Spirit - your points remain weak and are in error.You rebuttal has no content. I have given my short summary and interpretation of Joel, you haven't given an alternative.

BroRog
Mar 9th 2010, 03:25 PM
It's there in black and white - the nation of Israel rejected her Messiah and God used the Roman legions to destroy that nation. Again - God's holy nation is not an unbelieving nation - God's holy nation is made up of those Jews and Gentiles who call upon the name of Jesus Christ - this eliminates the physical nation of Israel out of hand.Israel was a holy nation during her worst times of disobedience prior to the cross. Before or after the cross makes no difference. God's holy nation has always been an unbelieving nation. She won't be a believing nation until sometime in our future. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day. :)

BroRog
Mar 9th 2010, 03:32 PM
Huh? How is a nation of dis-believers a Holy Nation?

Sorry, but that does even make common sense, much less biblical sense.

all the best...Israel has always been a holy nation and she has always been an unbelieving nation. That fact that she doesn't believe today doesn't take away from the fact that she is holy to God. The word "holy" doesn't mean, "good", or "moral" or, "believing." It means, "set aside for a special purpose." Deuteronomy 7:6

John146
Mar 9th 2010, 04:49 PM
Romans 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;


Isn't it the Gentiles that make up the wild olive tree? If so, then who does that make that origonally makes up the good olive tree? How could it not be Israel, IOW the Jews? If the good olive tree had branches broken off, this doesn't change anything about the tree, because the tree still has it's roots. This means that the good olive tree will always be Israel, and that the Gentiles were grafted into it, not that they replaced the entire tree, nor made the tree into something other than it already was.You think we have been grafted into the nation of Israel? Notice that the requirement for remaining in the tree or being grafted in is faith:

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

The requirement for being part of the nation of Israel is not faith, but being a natural descendant. So, the good olive tree cannot possibly be the nation of Israel. What was it that Gentile believers were grafted into and made into "one new man" along with Jewish believers? Not the nation of Israel. The household of God, which is the church. We are grafted into the Israel of God, not the nation of Israel. As Paul said in Romans 9:6, "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". You're relating the good olive tree to the wrong Israel.

Ephesians 2
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

The description of the good olive tree is just like the description here of "the household of God", which is clearly a description of the church, of which Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. Gentiles were once not part of the good olive tree/household of God, but now they have been grafted in as "one new man" with Jewish believers. Just as Christ is the root of the good olive tree, He is the chief cornerstone of the church. The good olive tree is the church.

David Taylor
Mar 9th 2010, 05:07 PM
Romans 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

Are you suggesting that an olive tree can grow branches that are not even of the olive tree? If an apple tree brings forth apples, what makes the rest of the tree not an apple tree? Can a banana tree produce apples? If an apple tree produces branches with apples, then, if the natural branches of a good olive tree is Israel, then so is the good olive tree itself, it must also be Israel.

Not Israel.
The Olive Tree symbolizes Christ.

Being graffed into Christ is what is important, not being graffed into Israel...that's completely irrelevant compared to the riches of Christ.




Faithful branches (natural and wild) are graffed into Him and bear much fruit.
Unfaithful branches (natural and wild) are cut off and thrown into the fire.
John 15:4 "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."

Colossians 2:6 "As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him"

Revelation 5:5 "behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David"

Isaiah 11:1 "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots"

Matthew 3:10 "And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."

Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit."

divaD
Mar 9th 2010, 05:18 PM
You think we have been grafted into the nation of Israel? Notice that the requirement for remaining in the tree or being grafted in is faith:

Romans 11
20Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

The requirement for being part of the nation of Israel is not faith, but being a natural descendant. So, the good olive tree cannot possibly be the nation of Israel. What was it that Gentile believers were grafted into and made into "one new man" along with Jewish believers? Not the nation of Israel. The household of God, which is the church. We are grafted into the Israel of God, not the nation of Israel. As Paul said in Romans 9:6, "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel". You're relating the good olive tree to the wrong Israel.

Ephesians 2
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

The description of the good olive tree is just like the description here of "the household of God", which is clearly a description of the church, of which Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. Gentiles were once not part of the good olive tree/household of God, but now they have been grafted in as "one new man" with Jewish believers. Just as Christ is the root of the good olive tree, He is the chief cornerstone of the church. The good olive tree is the church.


It only stands to reason, whoever the natural branches represent, then that's who the tree represents. If one were to break the natural branches off an oak tree for example, does this mean the oak tree itself is not really an oak tree, or that that the natural branches broken off are not really oak branches? Of course not. So why wouldn't the same concept apply if the natural branches are the nation of Israel? If the natural branches are the nation of Israel, then how can the tree itself not also be the nation of Israel? It was branches that were broken off..the entire tree wasn't destroyed.

Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded


Why couldn't the nation of Israel be comprised of the election, and of those that were blinded?

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


In my opin, the all includes those that were blinded.




The good olive tree is the church.

Why wouldn't it be? why wouldn't the nation of Israel, the election, not be the church?

divaD
Mar 9th 2010, 05:46 PM
Faithful branches (natural and wild) are graffed into Him and bear much fruit.

Where does it ever state the natural branches are graffed into the good olive tree? It states they can be graffed back in after being broken off, but I'm talking about before they're broken off?

If Christ is the olive tree, and if the natural branches are the nation of Israel, then this makes the nation of Israel Christ, because natural branches imply that they were part of the tree from the very beginning. If someone plants an oak tree, and when it shoots forth branches, these would be natural branches. Natural branches of what? A pinapple tree? Nope..an oak tree.

John146
Mar 9th 2010, 07:15 PM
It only stands to reason, whoever the natural branches represent, then that's who the tree represents. If one were to break the natural branches off an oak tree for example, does this mean the oak tree itself is not really an oak tree, or that that the natural branches broken off are not really oak branches? Of course not. So why wouldn't the same concept apply if the natural branches are the nation of Israel? If the natural branches are the nation of Israel, then how can the tree itself not also be the nation of Israel? It was branches that were broken off..the entire tree wasn't destroyed.Do you understand that there are two Israels, as Paul indicates in Romans 9:6? It appears that you are not differentiating between the two.

The natural branches that were broken off would include people like the Pharisees, right? By being blinded and broken off that did not mean they were no longer Israelites (part of the nation of Israel). But it did mean they were no longer part of the Israel of God. Remember what Jesus said to them:

Matt 21
42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

So, it was Israelites such as the chief priests and Pharisees that were blinded and broken off the good olive tree, which represents the Israel of God, the kingdom of God.


Romans 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded


Why couldn't the nation of Israel be comprised of the election, and of those that were blinded?In earthly or natural terms, both the election and those who were blinded were Israelites. But not spiritually. To be part of the nation of Israel does not require faith, but requires naturally being part of that bloodline. But being part of the Israel of God requires faith. That is what I think you are missing. Paul differentiated between the election and those who were blinded. Notice that he says the election did obtain that which Israel "seeketh for" but Israel did not. So, in that verse Israel refers to "the rest" of the Israelites who were blinded. The election referred to Israelite believers who were of the Israel of God. As Paul said in Romans 9:6, "they are not all Israel which are of Israel".


Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


In my opin, the all includes those that were blinded.I believe some of those who were blinded later repented and put their faith in Christ. Paul said that if they would remain not in unbelief they would be grafted back in (Rom 11:23). But I don't think it's reasonable to think they all would be saved. Remember, Paul is talking about people who were being broken off a long time ago. Were they all later saved? No. So, what he says in Romans 11:26 can't include all who were blinded.


Why wouldn't it be? why wouldn't the nation of Israel, the election, not be the church?Because the nation of Israel includes unbelievers while the church does not. You just aren't understanding that there is the nation of Israel, which only requires being a natural descendant to be part of it and then there is the Israel of God, which requires faith to be part of it.

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.

I've color coded this passage to show the difference between the two Israels. I believe the Israel in red is the good olive tree. The children of the promise are all those who have faith in Christ and nationality has nothing to do with it.

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.

David Taylor
Mar 9th 2010, 07:27 PM
Where does it ever state the natural branches are graffed into the good olive tree? It states they can be graffed back in after being broken off, but I'm talking about before they're broken off?

If Christ is the olive tree, and if the natural branches are the nation of Israel, then this makes the nation of Israel Christ, because natural branches imply that they were part of the tree from the very beginning. If someone plants an oak tree, and when it shoots forth branches, these would be natural branches. Natural branches of what? A pinapple tree? Nope..an oak tree.


In the analogy, there are 4 possible types of participants that can be graffed into or broken off of the olive tree (Christ).

1) faithful natural branches.
2) unfaithful natural branches.
3) faithful wild branches.
4) unfaithful wild branches.

All men are invited to partake of the fatness of the root of the Olive tree.

"Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. "

The unfaithful (both natural and wild) are cut off and cast into the fire.

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

The faithful (both natural and wild) remain graffed into the Olive Tree, and together partake of the fatness of the Root!

" If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."

"For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree"

So the composition of the tree (oak as your example) isn't Israel or not Israel, rather it is faithful or unfaithful. All are invited to participate, but the unfaithful are cut off and cast into the fire, only the faithful remain. Then entire use of the terms 'natural' and 'wild' is to remove the racism and the ethnic wall of separation that existed in the minds of the time between Jews and Gentiles. However, Paul is showing that isn't a factor at all....racism is dead and gone.

Faithfulness alone, keeps each and every branch attached, healthy, and productively partaking of the fatness of the Root, wich is Christ!

The Olive Tree, symbolizing all the people of God by faith regardless of race or ethnicity; united in Christ.

David Taylor
Mar 9th 2010, 07:44 PM
In earthly or natural terms, both the election and those who were blinded were Israelites. But not spiritually. To be part of the nation of Israel does not require faith, but requires naturally being part of that bloodline. But being part of the Israel of God requires faith. That is what I think you are missing. Paul differentiated between the election and those who were blinded.

Exactly,
:)

Jesus Himself explained this difference within "Israel" Himself very well in the Gospels.

Notice how Jesus distinguishes between
unbelieving Israel (not being of God, and not truly being Abraham's children), and
believing Israel (who are of God because they love Jesus are believe in Him as Abraham's true children do).

"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth. Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him." John 8:31

"Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And many believed on him there. " John 10:24

"many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus." John 11:45; 12:9

Sirus
Mar 10th 2010, 01:43 AM
If Christ is the olive tree, and if the natural branches are the nation of Israel, then this makes the nation of Israel Christ, because natural branches imply that they were part of the tree from the very beginning. If someone plants an oak tree, and when it shoots forth branches, these would be natural branches. Natural branches of what? A pinapple tree? Nope..an oak tree.Concerning salvation 'natural' does not matter. Who's image was man made in? God or Israel? Who's image are we transformed into? Christ or Israel? The promised seed goes back to the garden. Abraham was a Gentile. Israel is not a race. Israel is man. God did not set aside a race. Israel was man that God declared His name through. He set aside and gave man dominion over all the works of His hands from the garden, not Israel. God has always been the God of both Jew and Gentile. Salvation is of the Jews refers to Christ coming in the flesh through Israel. Names are significant. Israel means something. Focus on that.

We are not talking about trees. We are talking about salvation and His riches using terms to represent the inheritance. Christ came in the flesh through Israel. We don't look to Israel bringing Christ any longer we look to Christ.

losthorizon
Mar 10th 2010, 03:38 AM
Israel was a holy nation during her worst times of disobedience prior to the cross. Before or after the cross makes no difference. God's holy nation has always been an unbelieving nation. She won't be a believing nation until sometime in our future. Perhaps tomorrow or the next day. :)
Sorry Rog - you miss the mark once again. God's holy nation today is not the secular, unbelieving nation of Israel. God's holy nation today is the church of God – the Israel of God on earth today...
And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:16 ASV)What rule – the truth that redemption is through the sacrifice of Christ. Does the unbelieving nation of Israel walk by this rule Rog? Of course not so that nation cannot be the Israel of God today. You are in error my friend. Who does walk by that rule today? The true Christian – those who are in Christ (Jew and Gentile).
Gal 6:16. As many as walk according to this rule - This canon; viz. what is laid down in the preceding verses, that redemption is through the sacrifice of Christ; that circumcision and uncircumcision are equally unavailable; and that none can be saved without being created anew. This is the grand canon or rule in Christianity. Peace be on them - Those who act from this conviction will have the peace and mercy of God; for it is in this way that mercy is communicated and peace obtained. The Israel of God - The true Christians, called here the Israel of God, to distinguish them from Israel according to the flesh. ~ Adam Clarke

Philip dT
Mar 10th 2010, 11:14 AM
Sorry Rog - you miss the mark once again. God's holy nation today is not the secular, unbelieving nation of Israel. God's holy nation today is the church of God – the Israel of God on earth today...
And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:16 ASV)What rule – the truth that redemption is through the sacrifice of Christ. Does the unbelieving nation of Israel walk by this rule Rog? Of course not so that nation cannot be the Israel of God today. You are in error my friend. Who does walk by that rule today? The true Christian – those who are in Christ (Jew and Gentile).
Gal 6:16. As many as walk according to this rule - This canon; viz. what is laid down in the preceding verses, that redemption is through the sacrifice of Christ; that circumcision and uncircumcision are equally unavailable; and that none can be saved without being created anew. This is the grand canon or rule in Christianity. Peace be on them - Those who act from this conviction will have the peace and mercy of God; for it is in this way that mercy is communicated and peace obtained. The Israel of God - The true Christians, called here the Israel of God, to distinguish them from Israel according to the flesh. ~ Adam Clarke

Exactly! There is no grounds in the NT that unbelieving people (whether Jews or not) are reckoned as being God's people. God only has one people. The believers are now Children of Abraham (Gal 3:7). In fact, (also in answer to "whom is God's holy nation?"):

1 Pet 2:9-10 "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession, so that you might speak of the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; (10) you who then were not a people, but now the people of God, those not pitied then, but now pitied."

divaD
Mar 10th 2010, 02:18 PM
Do you understand that there are two Israels, as Paul indicates in Romans 9:6? It appears that you are not differentiating between the two.

The natural branches that were broken off would include people like the Pharisees, right? By being blinded and broken off that did not mean they were no longer Israelites (part of the nation of Israel). But it did mean they were no longer part of the Israel of God. Remember what Jesus said to them:

.



Apparently everyone is missing my point. I agree, the ones that were broken off would include those like the Pharisees, etc. No problem there. But who wasn't broken off? The elect, such as Abraham, David, etc. Surely these remained part of the olive tree, making the olive tree the elect of Israel. Surely these are of the nation of Israel. The point I'm trying to make, Abraham, David, etc, this is the church, this is what we're graffed into. If the church comes after Abraham, David, etc, then they would need to be graffed into the good olive tree, but they're not, because they're already a part of the good olive tree. It was we Gentiles that were graffed into the good olive tree. The point I'm trying to make, the good olive tree has always been the Israel of God, as you put it. So, how could the Israel of God not be the nation of Israel, which was promised thru Abraham? If you can show that Abraham, David, etc gets graffed into the good olive tree after Christ's death and resurrection, I would like to see the Scriptures.

Philip dT
Mar 10th 2010, 02:40 PM
Apparently everyone is missing my point. I agree, the ones that were broken off would include those like the Pharisees, etc. No problem there. But who wasn't broken off? The elect, such as Abraham, David, etc. Surely these remained part of the olive tree, making the olive tree the elect of Israel. Surely these are of the nation of Israel. The point I'm trying to make, Abraham, David, etc, this is the church, this is what we're graffed into. If the church comes after Abraham, David, etc, then they would need to be graffed into the good olive tree, but they're not, because they're already a part of the good olive tree. It was we Gentiles that were graffed into the good olive tree. The point I'm trying to make, the good olive tree has always been the Israel of God, as you put it. So, how could the Israel of God not be the nation of Israel, which was promised thru Abraham? If you can show that Abraham, David, etc gets graffed into the good olive tree after Christ's death and resurrection, I would like to see the Scriptures.

The Jews that weren't broken off are those that accepted Christ and believed in Him as we believe in Him. That is why Rom 11:23 says: "And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in"

divaD
Mar 10th 2010, 02:47 PM
The Jews that weren't broken off are those that accepted Christ and believed in Him as we believe in Him. That is why Rom 11:23 says: "And those also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in"



This is true, but what about all the Jews that came before Christ, such as David, etc? Did they not believe in the promises? Another thing to consider..the good olive tree pre-dated Christ, or at least pre-dated Christ's first advent.

David Taylor
Mar 10th 2010, 03:04 PM
This is true, but what about all the Jews that came before Christ, such as David, etc? Did they not believe in the promises? Another thing to consider..the good olive tree pre-dated Christ, or at least pre-dated Christ's first advent.

The Good Olive tree also pre-dates all the Jews, and the nation of Israel, and all the Israelites.

The Good Olive tree originally included pre-Israel faithful Gentile folks like Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Abel, etc....

It's never been about race or birthdate...but faith of the individual human being in being graffed into the good Olive Tree.



"ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me"

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. "

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

" If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."

"For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches. and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree"

divaD
Mar 10th 2010, 03:20 PM
It's never been about race


Believe it or not, and I know that I have a different way of putting things, I fully agree with this. The reason I fully agree with this is, if it were about race, then none of the Jews would have ever been broken off, they would have been automatically in, but we know that's not the case. No..what it's all about is the heart..it's a matter of the heart.

divaD
Mar 10th 2010, 03:26 PM
The Good Olive tree originally included pre-Israel faithful Gentile folks like Isaac, Abraham, Noah, Abel, etc....

I forgot to mention this in my last post..you do make a very good point here.

John146
Mar 10th 2010, 09:44 PM
Apparently everyone is missing my point. I agree, the ones that were broken off would include those like the Pharisees, etc. No problem there. But who wasn't broken off? The elect, such as Abraham, David, etc.Along with Paul and the remnant of believers of his day.

1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.


Surely these remained part of the olive tree, making the olive tree the elect of Israel. Surely these are of the nation of Israel.Yes, but the rest of the nation of Israel was broken off of the tree, so this shows that the olive tree is not the nation of Israel, but the spiritual Israel of God. To be part of and remain a part of the nation of Israel does not require faith, it just requires being a natural descendant of that nation. But being a part of the Israel of God and remaining in the Israel of God requires faith (Rom 11:20-23).


The point I'm trying to make, Abraham, David, etc, this is the church, this is what we're graffed into. If the church comes after Abraham, David, etc, then they would need to be graffed into the good olive tree, but they're not, because they're already a part of the good olive tree. It was we Gentiles that were graffed into the good olive tree. The point I'm trying to make, the good olive tree has always been the Israel of God, as you put it. So, how could the Israel of God not be the nation of Israel, which was promised thru Abraham? If you can show that Abraham, David, etc gets graffed into the good olive tree after Christ's death and resurrection, I would like to see the Scriptures.I never said that Abraham, David, etc. were not already in the good olive tree. They, along with Paul and the remnant of Jewish believers of his day, remained in the good olive tree and after that Gentile believers were grafted in along with more Jewish believers and that has been the case ever since.

You asked "how can the nation of Israel not be the nation of Israel?". Read Romans 9:6-8. When Paul said "they are not all Israel (Israel #1) which are of Israel (Israel #2)" what do you think that means? I believe it means that not all who are of the nation of Israel (Israel #2 - an earthly nation) are in the Israel of God (Israel #1 - God's spiritual nation).

BroRog
Mar 11th 2010, 12:05 AM
Sorry Rog - you miss the mark once again. God's holy nation today is not the secular, unbelieving nation of Israel. God's holy nation today is the church of God – the Israel of God on earth today...
And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:16 ASV)What rule – the truth that redemption is through the sacrifice of Christ. Does the unbelieving nation of Israel walk by this rule Rog? Of course not so that nation cannot be the Israel of God today. You are in error my friend. Who does walk by that rule today? The true Christian – those who are in Christ (Jew and Gentile).
Gal 6:16. As many as walk according to this rule - This canon; viz. what is laid down in the preceding verses, that redemption is through the sacrifice of Christ; that circumcision and uncircumcision are equally unavailable; and that none can be saved without being created anew. This is the grand canon or rule in Christianity. Peace be on them - Those who act from this conviction will have the peace and mercy of God; for it is in this way that mercy is communicated and peace obtained. The Israel of God - The true Christians, called here the Israel of God, to distinguish them from Israel according to the flesh. ~ Adam ClarkePaul is not saying that the Israel of God "walks by this rule." Paul is blessing those who "walk by this rule" AND "the Israel of God." This is two different groups, not one group.

BroRog
Mar 11th 2010, 12:07 AM
Exactly! There is no grounds in the NT that unbelieving people (whether Jews or not) are reckoned as being God's people. God only has one people. The believers are now Children of Abraham (Gal 3:7). In fact, (also in answer to "whom is God's holy nation?"):

1 Pet 2:9-10 "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession, so that you might speak of the praises of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; (10) you who then were not a people, but now the people of God, those not pitied then, but now pitied."Peter is talking to the Diaspora, the Jews living outside of Israel.

losthorizon
Mar 11th 2010, 12:50 AM
Paul is not saying that the Israel of God "walks by this rule." Paul is blessing those who "walk by this rule" AND "the Israel of God." This is two different groups, not one group.
Paul is distinguishing the Israel of God (those who accept the Messiahship of Jesus Christ) from Israel according to the flesh who do not walk according to that "rule". Those who accept Jesus as the Christ are all true Christians - Jew and Gentile - *one in Christ Jesus*. The nation of Israel continues in unbelief - the nation of Israel is not God's holy nation.

losthorizon
Mar 11th 2010, 01:05 AM
Peter is talking to the Diaspora, the Jews living outside of Israel.
Wrong again, Rog - Peter is clearly speaking about the Lord's church. Three strikes and you are out...
An holy nation - This is also taken from Exo_19:6. The Hebrews were regarded as a nation consecrated to God; and now that they were cast off or rejected for their disobedience, the same language was properly applied to the people whom God had chosen in their place - the Christian church. ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

BroRog
Mar 11th 2010, 04:28 PM
Paul is distinguishing the Israel of God (those who accept the Messiahship of Jesus Christ) from Israel according to the flesh who do not walk according to that "rule". Those who accept Jesus as the Christ are all true Christians - Jew and Gentile - *one in Christ Jesus*. The nation of Israel continues in unbelief - the nation of Israel is not God's holy nation.One of the first things I learned as one who practices exegesis is to diagram sentences. The first step is to find the verb; the second step is to find the subject, etc. Galatians 6:16 is an invocation in which Paul is asking God to bring peace and mercy on someone or some group. As is typical of invocations, the subject, the verb, and the direct object are understood or implied. Only the indirect object is explicit. I will reconstruct the verse, supplying the implied subject, verb, and direct object in italics.

"I, Paul, want you, God to bring peace and mercy on those who walk by this rule and the Israel of God."

In an invocation, the implied subject is the speaker; in this case the speaker is Paul. Since the invocation is like a prayer, the implied verb expresses a desire, petition, wish, want, etc. And finally, since the invocation is a petition made to God, the implied object of the verb is God. The explicit portion of the sentence expresses what Paul wants God to do for the two groups mentioned: those who walk by this rule, and the Israel of God. Paul wants God to bring peace and mercy on those who walk by this rule, which is one group of people. And Paul wants God to bring peace and mercy on the Israel of God, which is another group of people.

We know that the Israel of God isn't necessarily the same group of people who "walk by this rule" for a couple of reasons. First, Paul intentionally places one group of people in the sentence before the nouns "peace" and "mercy" and he puts the other group of people after these nouns. Had he intended to suggest that the phrases "those who walk by this rule" and "the Israel of God" described the same group, he had a chance to express this idea by placing them in together in the sentence.

Secondly, it is customary for writers to explain an uncommon use of a term. Had Paul wanted to coin the term "Israel" to represent the church, rather than the country, he would have made a statement to this effect in order to avoid confusion. The fact that he didn't alert his readers that he was using the term "Israel" outside of convention, we have no justification to suggest he was.

Your assertion to the contrary doesn't make it true. :)

BroRog
Mar 11th 2010, 04:42 PM
Wrong again, Rog - Peter is clearly speaking about the Lord's church. Three strikes and you are out...
An holy nation - This is also taken from Exo_19:6. The Hebrews were regarded as a nation consecrated to God; and now that they were cast off or rejected for their disobedience, the same language was properly applied to the people whom God had chosen in their place - the Christian church. ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the BibleAlbert barns is wrong for several reasons. First of all, Israel was not cut off and rejected.

Romans 11:1

I say then, God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.Albert Barnes has contradicted Paul's explicit and unambiguous teaching that God has not cast off or rejected Israel.

Again Paul speaks clearly and emphatically against the notion that God has cut off his people Israel.

Romans 11:11

I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be!The natural born sons of Jacob, formed by God into the nation of Israel, did not stumble as to fall, i.e fall to their destruction. Not only did they not fall, Paul asserts that Israel will rise again to find her ultimate destiny as the holy nation God created her to be.

Romans 11:12

Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! Not only was the original tree holy, but its branches are two. And he asks the Gentiles not to boast against the branches that were cut off.

David Taylor
Mar 11th 2010, 04:54 PM
Everyone is invited, Jew or Gentile.

"The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"


Only the unfaithful branches were/are cut off.

Romans 11:22 "thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. "

Boasting either from a Judaizer perspective, or a reverse-Judaizer perspective is something no child of God would do; because the faithful child of God knows that racism is irrelevant and God sees each of us as His own creations, made in His image; and He invites everyone of us to be faithfullly graffed into the the True and Holy Olive Tree!

Nihil Obstat
Mar 11th 2010, 04:56 PM
We know that the Israel of God isn't necessarily the same group of people who "walk by this rule" for a couple of reasons. First, Paul intentionally places one group of people in the sentence before the nouns "peace" and "mercy" and he puts the other group of people after these nouns. Had he intended to suggest that the phrases "those who walk by this rule" and "the Israel of God" described the same group, he had a chance to express this idea by placing them in together in the sentence.

Secondly, it is customary for writers to explain an uncommon use of a term. Had Paul wanted to coin the term "Israel" to represent the church, rather than the country, he would have made a statement to this effect in order to avoid confusion. The fact that he didn't alert his readers that he was using the term "Israel" outside of convention, we have no justification to suggest he was.

These would be really good points, except 'for a couple of reasons'. ;) First off, "kai" doesn't only mean "and"; it can mean "even" or "namely" as well. It could be read here, then, that "the Israel of God" is defined as those who "walk according to this rule". Secondly, Paul is speaking against Jews who came into Galatia and preached another gospel. In the least, then, the Israel of God to whom he petitions God's peace and mercy to be upon can only be those Israelites who preach the true gospel - not those who have been cut off. But thirdly, you claim that "Israel of God" cannot be a new term, as you see no place where he alerted his readers to an 'unconventional' usage of the phrase. However, only a chapter earlier he speaks of the "Jerusalem above" who is the mother of all those in Christ, and before that of "Abraham's seed" who is the father of all those in Christ. Now, if my second point is true, then why couldn't "Israel of God" - just as "citizens of the Jerusalem above" and "Abraham's seed" did - include both the faithful Israelites and the believing Gentiles as well?

Blessings, buddy.

John146
Mar 11th 2010, 07:16 PM
One of the first things I learned as one who practices exegesis is to diagram sentences. The first step is to find the verb; the second step is to find the subject, etc. Galatians 6:16 is an invocation in which Paul is asking God to bring peace and mercy on someone or some group. As is typical of invocations, the subject, the verb, and the direct object are understood or implied. Only the indirect object is explicit. I will reconstruct the verse, supplying the implied subject, verb, and direct object in italics.

"I, Paul, want you, God to bring peace and mercy on those who walk by this rule and the Israel of God."

In an invocation, the implied subject is the speaker; in this case the speaker is Paul. Since the invocation is like a prayer, the implied verb expresses a desire, petition, wish, want, etc. And finally, since the invocation is a petition made to God, the implied object of the verb is God. The explicit portion of the sentence expresses what Paul wants God to do for the two groups mentioned: those who walk by this rule, and the Israel of God. Paul wants God to bring peace and mercy on those who walk by this rule, which is one group of people. And Paul wants God to bring peace and mercy on the Israel of God, which is another group of people.

We know that the Israel of God isn't necessarily the same group of people who "walk by this rule" for a couple of reasons. First, Paul intentionally places one group of people in the sentence before the nouns "peace" and "mercy" and he puts the other group of people after these nouns. Had he intended to suggest that the phrases "those who walk by this rule" and "the Israel of God" described the same group, he had a chance to express this idea by placing them in together in the sentence.

Secondly, it is customary for writers to explain an uncommon use of a term. Had Paul wanted to coin the term "Israel" to represent the church, rather than the country, he would have made a statement to this effect in order to avoid confusion. The fact that he didn't alert his readers that he was using the term "Israel" outside of convention, we have no justification to suggest he was.

Your assertion to the contrary doesn't make it true. :)This kind of reasoning may work in an English class, but doesn't work here. Please look at the following passage:

Rev 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Is this verse speaking of two different groups with one being "all ye his servants" and the other being "ye that fear him, both small and great"? Using the logic you use to interpret Galatians 6:15-16, you would say yes. But, I don't believe so. Surely, all of God's servants fear Him, right? So, it's not speaking of two different groups, but rather refers to the same group in two different ways. First, it refers to them as God's servants and then as those who fear Him.

So, we can see that the type of wording used in Gal 6:16 does not mean that Paul must have been referring to two different groups with one being those who "walk according to this rule" and the other being "the Israel of God". Those who walk according to the rule that says we are new creatures in Christ regardless of whether we've been circumcised or not make up the Israel of God. As astrongerthan he pointed out, the Greek word kai can mean "even" or "namely" rather than "and" so the text can read like this:

Gal 6:16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to (namely) the Israel of God.

So, in this case we can more clearly see that "the Israel of God" is another way of referring to all those who follow the rule that Paul described in verse 15.

What Paul said there goes along with what he says in Romans 9:6-8 where he points out that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel". They are not all in the Israel of God who are of the nation of Israel. Only those who are in Christ are in the Israel of God.

Philip dT
Mar 11th 2010, 07:38 PM
Regarding Gal 6:16.

Gal 6:13-16 "For they themselves, having been circumcised, do not even keep the Law, but they desire you to be circumcised so that they may boast in your flesh. (14) But may it never be for me to boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world. (15) 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."

Paul speaks in verse 13 of circumcised people - Jews - and that they seek to boast in the flesh. But (verse 14) Paul will not boast in it (even though he is also circumcised). He will boast in the cross of Christ. In verse 15, Paul says that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any strength, but a new creation. In other words, being a physical Israelite or not has no value. But being born again in Christ has the only value. Verse 16 talks about "this rule." Which rule? The rule that only a new creation in Christ has value, "peace and mercy be upon them and upon the Israel of God." Will this "Israel" then be a non-beleiving, Israel in the flesh? Just after Paul confirmed that being Israel in the flesh is of no value? Absolutely not! This Israel is the new creation, this "Israel of God" is being born again. The "kai" (and) is therefore merely and epexegetic "kai" - in fact, the context forces an epexegetic "kai" - a very well known use of "kai."

Regarding the cutting off of physical Israel:

Rom 11:20-21 "Well, because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be high-minded, but fear. (21) For if God did not spare the natural branches, fear lest He also may not spare you either!"

1. Because of unbelief they were cut off! In other words, those who did not believe were cut off - they who did not accept Christ and did not believe in Him. All the Jews who did not believe in Christ were therefore cut off.
2. God did not spare the natural branches! In other words, the natural branches, the physical Israel (who did not believe) were all cut off.

David Taylor
Mar 11th 2010, 07:43 PM
Rev 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Is this verse speaking of two different groups with one being "all ye his servants" and the other being "ye that fear him, both small and great"? Using the logic you use to interpret Galatians 6:15-16, you would say yes. But, I don't believe so. Surely, all of God's servants fear Him, right? So, it's not speaking of two different groups, but rather refers to the same group in two different ways. First, it refers to them as God's servants and then as those who fear Him.

So, we can see that the type of wording used in Gal 6:16 does not mean that Paul must have been referring to two different groups with one being those who "walk according to this rule" and the other being "the Israel of God". Those who walk according to the rule that says we are new creatures in Christ regardless of whether we've been circumcised or not make up the Israel of God.

Yeah Roger appears to be recrafting Galatians 6:16 to fit his interpretation, instead of just accepting the verse as one description of God's Holy people.

The Bible throughout uses two different descriptions in one verse, to describe one group....so this premise certainly doesn't stand the test of contextual scrutiny. Here are some more examples.


(one group or two?) Psalms 119:79 Let those that fear thee turn unto me, and those that have known thy testimonies."
(one group or two?) Matthew 13:41 "they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity"
(one group or two?) Psalms 37:20 "the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs"
(one group or two?) Isaiah 19:8 "The fishers also shall mourn, and all they that cast angle into the brooks shall lament"
(one group or two?) Rev 20:4 "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus"

divaD
Mar 11th 2010, 10:05 PM
Just out of curiosity, why are there stars to the right of some topics, such as this one for instance? What do they mean, and how do they get there? The reason I ask.. not every topic has a star or stars to the right of the topic. I've always wanted to know I guess, but never got around to asking until now.

losthorizon
Mar 11th 2010, 11:16 PM
One of the first things I learned as one who practices exegesis is to diagram sentences.


Well Rog as one who “practices exegesis” you fail to understand that the issue is decided more on context than grammatical diagramming. The truth remains - in spiritual terms, the church of God is now "the Israel of God". The Lord's church is made up of those Jews and Gentiles who have been regenerated via faith in Jesus Christ. Today the "true Jew" is anyone born of the Spirit “for no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly...a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit..." (Rom 2:28-29).

losthorizon
Mar 11th 2010, 11:25 PM
Albert barns is wrong for several reasons. First of all, Israel was not cut off and rejected.

Actually Barnes is correct - God rejected the nation of Israel determining to "scatter them as dust". Jesus clearly states that God shall take the kingdom away from her because of her unbelief. The kingdom would be given to a “nation bringing out its fruits” – that new nation is the church of God – the Israel of God today…
Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits. And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
(Mat 21:43-44 MKJV)

Shall be taken away from you (αρθησετα αφ' υμων). Future passive indicative of αιρω. It was the death-knell of the Jewish nation with their hopes of political and religious world leadership. ~ Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament

Verse 43. The kingdom of God, etc. Jesus applies the parable to them--the Jews. They had been the children of the kingdom, or under the reign of God; having his law, and acknowledging him as King. They had been his chosen and peculiar people. But he says that now this privilege should be taken away, and they cease to be the peculiar people of God; and the blessing should be given to a nation who would bring forth the fruits thereof, or be righteous; that is, to the Gentiles, Acts 28:28. ~ Albert Barnes

Sirus
Mar 12th 2010, 12:39 AM
Everyone is invited, Jew or Gentile.

"The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men"


Only the unfaithful branches were/are cut off.

Romans 11:22 "thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. "

Boasting either from a Judaizer perspective, or a reverse-Judaizer perspective is something no child of God would do; because the faithful child of God knows that racism is irrelevant and God sees each of us as His own creations, made in His image; and He invites everyone of us to be faithfullly graffed into the the True and Holy Olive Tree!Amen!!!!

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Joh 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 12th 2010, 04:00 AM
To John146 and losthorizon, are you claiming that Israel as a whole was cut off at the time of Jesus' crucifixion?
Thanks for clarifying.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 12th 2010, 04:38 AM
According to the NT the church of Jesus Christ (the body of Christ) did not exist prior to the first Pentecost after the Lord's resurrection...

I meant to ask you to prove this for me, that the church did not exist prior to the Christ event, because I do not agree with that statement.

kay-gee
Mar 12th 2010, 12:16 PM
that the church did not exist prior to the Christ event, because I do not agree with that statement.

The first one and just off the top of my head is Matt 16:18...and upon this rock I "will" build my Church.

The words of Christ, the builder.

all the best...

BroRog
Mar 12th 2010, 03:42 PM
This kind of reasoning may work in an English class, but doesn't work here. Please look at the following passage:

Rev 19:5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.

Is this verse speaking of two different groups with one being "all ye his servants" and the other being "ye that fear him, both small and great"? Using the logic you use to interpret Galatians 6:15-16, you would say yes. But, I don't believe so. Surely, all of God's servants fear Him, right? So, it's not speaking of two different groups, but rather refers to the same group in two different ways. First, it refers to them as God's servants and then as those who fear Him.Your example doesn't match the criteria I set forth. In Rev 19:5 the verbal equivalents are grouped together at the end of the sentence, whereas in Gal. 6:16 the phrases are at opposite ends of the sentence.

Also, there is no evidence in the text to suggest that Paul is using the term "Israel" in an uncommon way.


So, we can see that the type of wording used in Gal 6:16 does not mean that Paul must have been referring to two different groups with one being those who "walk according to this rule" and the other being "the Israel of God". Those who walk according to the rule that says we are new creatures in Christ regardless of whether we've been circumcised or not make up the Israel of God.Maybe, maybe not. You will not get this theology from this verse, since it is just as likely that Paul is asking for peace and mercy for those who walk according to the principle that circumcision is nothing and those who walk according to the principle that circumcision is essential, both of which are subjects of this letter.


As astrongerthan he pointed out, the Greek word kai can mean "even" or "namely" rather than "and" so the text can read like this:

Gal 6:16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to (namely) the Israel of God.

So, in this case we can more clearly see that "the Israel of God" is another way of referring to all those who follow the rule that Paul described in verse 15.One can certainly interpret it this way. The grammar doesn't rule it out and neither does it rule out my interpretation. That is why this verse can not be used as a proof text for anyone's view.


What Paul said there goes along with what he says in Romans 9:6-8 where he points out that "they are not all Israel which are of Israel". They are not all in the Israel of God who are of the nation of Israel. Only those who are in Christ are in the Israel of God.I don't agree with your interpretation of Romans 9:6-8. Where as you see Romans 9:6-8 as an inclusive statement, intended to include the Gentiles, I see it as an exclusive statement intended to eliminate some of the Jews from the Israel of the promise. Where as the Israel of the promise seemed to include all ethnic Jews, Paul is saying that the Israel of the promise will be restricted to the ethnic Jews of God's choosing.

RogerW
Mar 12th 2010, 05:01 PM
According to the NT the church of Jesus Christ (the body of Christ) did not exist prior to the first Pentecost after the Lord's resurrection and those who were added to that body by God were those who were born again


The first one and just off the top of my head is Matt 16:18...and upon this rock I "will" build my Church.

The words of Christ, the builder.

all the best...

How shall we interpret:

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

The word defined "church" here is the same word Christ uses when He tells Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." According to Luke, Christ's church existed long before Pentecost.

Many Blessings,
RW

Nihil Obstat
Mar 12th 2010, 05:12 PM
To add to what RogerW just wrote, see also Eph. 2:20 and Rev. 21:12-14, both which are clear passages evidencing continuity from before Pentecost to after Pentecost.

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 12th 2010, 05:30 PM
The first one and just off the top of my head is Matt 16:18...and upon this rock I "will" build my Church.

The words of Christ, the builder.

all the best...

I agree with you kay-gee, Israel is Israel, and the church is the church... The early church was Jewish, made up of Jews 1st, then of gentiles. But God has made an everlasting covenant with the Nation Israel, and that gets lost in many churches of today.

divaD
Mar 12th 2010, 05:48 PM
One of the first things I learned as one who practices exegesis is to diagram sentences. The first step is to find the verb; the second step is to find the subject, etc. Galatians 6:16 is an invocation in which Paul is asking God to bring peace and mercy on someone or some group. As is typical of invocations, the subject, the verb, and the direct object are understood or implied. Only the indirect object is explicit. I will reconstruct the verse, supplying the implied subject, verb, and direct object in italics.

"I, Paul, want you, God to bring peace and mercy on those who walk by this rule and the Israel of God."

In an invocation, the implied subject is the speaker; in this case the speaker is Paul. Since the invocation is like a prayer, the implied verb expresses a desire, petition, wish, want, etc. And finally, since the invocation is a petition made to God, the implied object of the verb is God. The explicit portion of the sentence expresses what Paul wants God to do for the two groups mentioned: those who walk by this rule, and the Israel of God. Paul wants God to bring peace and mercy on those who walk by this rule, which is one group of people. And Paul wants God to bring peace and mercy on the Israel of God, which is another group of people.

We know that the Israel of God isn't necessarily the same group of people who "walk by this rule" for a couple of reasons. First, Paul intentionally places one group of people in the sentence before the nouns "peace" and "mercy" and he puts the other group of people after these nouns. Had he intended to suggest that the phrases "those who walk by this rule" and "the Israel of God" described the same group, he had a chance to express this idea by placing them in together in the sentence.

Secondly, it is customary for writers to explain an uncommon use of a term. Had Paul wanted to coin the term "Israel" to represent the church, rather than the country, he would have made a statement to this effect in order to avoid confusion. The fact that he didn't alert his readers that he was using the term "Israel" outside of convention, we have no justification to suggest he was.

Your assertion to the contrary doesn't make it true. :)


BroRog, an English major I am not. Actually English was my worst subject in high school. I pretty much failed the class, mainly because I hated my teacher. But even so, why wouldn't the new creature in verse 15 not be the Israel of God, and why wouldn't as many as walk according to this rule not also be that new creature in verse 15? Would not the Israel of God be in Christ Jesus? would not as many as walk according to this rule also be in Christ Jesus? If yes to the last 2 questions, then how can there be a distiction between as many as walk according to this rule, and the Israel of God?

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 12th 2010, 08:23 PM
What is it about 70 AD that folks aren't getting? That was GOD saying to Israel...It's over!!!

It's over people. You're Christians. Stop obsessing about Israel. We have Christ. Isn't Christ superior to some dusty war torn piece of land?

I'm beginning to believe 1948 is part of the great delusion to decieve the elect. More bad theology has come from 1948 than ever before.

Christians today show more interest in Israel than the church it seems. That's just wrong.

all the best...


And my just reading this post I now also disagree

thedee
Mar 12th 2010, 09:48 PM
What is it about 70 AD that folks aren't getting? That was GOD saying to Israel...It's over!!!

It's over people. You're Christians. Stop obsessing about Israel. We have Christ. Isn't Christ superior to some dusty war torn piece of land?

I'm beginning to believe 1948 is part of the great delusion to decieve the elect. More bad theology has come from 1948 than ever before.

Christians today show more interest in Israel than the church it seems. That's just wrong.

all the best...

Did you forget about Ezekiel 37-39 or Zechariah 14. AD 70 was not a fulfillment of all these prophecy's my friend.

If you look in the gospels you will notice a difference between Luke and the other gospels:

Notice in Luke it says:
"But before all these things...." - Luke 21:12
And Matthew
"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake." - Matthew 24:9

See the difference... One is "before" the other is after "then".

It appears Luke is focusing more on AD 70 where as Matthew is not. One is talking about "before these things" and the other is talking about "after these things". In Matthew 24:16 it says "those who are in Judea". Are you in Judea?

John146
Mar 12th 2010, 10:07 PM
To John146 and losthorizon, are you claiming that Israel as a whole was cut off at the time of Jesus' crucifixion?
Thanks for clarifying.No, not at all. Romans 11:5-7 makes it clear that a remnant of believers were not cut off.

John146
Mar 12th 2010, 10:11 PM
I agree with you kay-gee, Israel is Israel, and the church is the church... The early church was Jewish, made up of Jews 1st, then of gentiles. But God has made an everlasting covenant with the Nation Israel, and that gets lost in many churches of today.Israel is Israel? What does that mean? Is there only one Israel? Not according to Romans 9:6-8.

I'd be curious to know how you interpret this 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.

thedee
Mar 12th 2010, 10:22 PM
Israel is Israel? What does that mean? Is there only one Israel? Not according to Romans 9:6-8.

I'd be curious to know how you interpret this 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.

In order to understand you must read all the way through chapter 11. There is a remnant of Israel that will reserved.... read Romans 11:4,5,26. God is not done dealing with the nation of Israel.

ClayInHisHands
Mar 12th 2010, 11:09 PM
Romans 11:27-32

28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs,
29 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable.
30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience,
31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now[h] receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you.
32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.




Okay, for those who don't see the nation of Israel as important...let's assume for a second that everything that has happened to Israel from 1948 and beyond is something God is doing because He in fact has set aside a predetermined group of jewish people for His purposes in the last days.....and still has plans for that nation......because remember all the times He considered them His even when they had their backs turned to Him.


Would you cry foul at God and say....that's no fair or would you say....if that's they way He wants to do it....who am I to question? I choose to see it as if God has plans like that then so be it...I accept it....I am His child no matter what. If this is in fact true about Israel and those who intepret it this way are correct, then I think we can agree that it wouldn't mean that God has changed or it wouldn't mean He is contradicting who He says that He is. Right? I liken it to the old argument.....if God and Jesus Christ is not the truth and none of it is real then we die and that's it. But are you willing to take that chance. I don't necessarily link the Israel issue to a salvation issue, but I think it's dangerous to spew that the nation of Israel, Jerusalem or the land is not of importance anymore. We must have one huge coincidence of protection that's been going on for 62 years.



In Christ's Love

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 12:37 AM
How shall we interpret:

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

The word defined "church" here is the same word Christ uses when He tells Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." According to Luke, Christ's church existed long before Pentecost.

Many Blessings,
RW
Hello RW - I think “ekklēsia” (church) in Acts 7:38 may be better rendered "congregation” in this passage - meaning the people of Israel gathered with Moses at Mt. Sinai…
This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us. (Act 7:38 ESV)

This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living words to give to us, (Act 7:38 MKJV)The “congregation of Israel” was a *type* of the church of Christ (the Lord's church being the antitype). Just as Moses, the mediator of the Old Covenant was “a type” of Christ Jesus – Jesus being the antitype - Jesus being the Mediator of a “better covenant” (Heb_8:6). Jesus said He *would build* (future tense) the church of Christ and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matthew 16: 18), therefore we see the Lord’s church did not exist before the first century events surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The church of God was established on the first Pentecost after the Lord's resurrection. It was built upon Peter's confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God – a truth not revealed until the first century. The notion that the Jewish “church in the wilderness” was the “church of Jesus Christ” is a false notion but to say the Jewish "church" was a *type of the Lord’s church* would be a correct statement.
A type is a shadow cast on the pages of Old Testament history by a truth whose full embodiment or antitype is found in the New Testament revelation… ~ Wick Broomall

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 12:41 AM
I meant to ask you to prove this for me, that the church did not exist prior to the Christ event, because I do not agree with that statement.
astrongerthanhe - see the post above and we can discuss further if need be...

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 12:58 AM
The grammar doesn't rule it out and neither does it rule out my interpretation. That is why this verse can not be used as a proof text for anyone's view.


That is why context is king in this passage Rog - Paul is distinguishing the Israel of God (those who accept the Messiahship of Jesus Christ) from Israel according to the flesh – those Jews who do not walk according to that "rule". Those who accept Jesus as the Christ today are all true Christians – both Jew and Gentile - *one in Christ Jesus*. The nation of Israel continues in unbelief - the nation of Israel is not God's holy nation.

BroRog
Mar 13th 2010, 01:08 AM
BroRog, an English major I am not. Actually English was my worst subject in high school. I pretty much failed the class, mainly because I hated my teacher. But even so, why wouldn't the new creature in verse 15 not be the Israel of God, and why wouldn't as many as walk according to this rule not also be that new creature in verse 15? Would not the Israel of God be in Christ Jesus? would not as many as walk according to this rule also be in Christ Jesus? If yes to the last 2 questions, then how can there be a distiction between as many as walk according to this rule, and the Israel of God?David, I too was really bad in English. I was never interested in English until I tried to study Greek. I found that I was forced to learn a little bit about how language works in order to understand both English and Greek together. I am forced to struggle hard and concentrate on it, most of the time and so it remains fresh in my mind. :) Along the way I found out that exegesis is more of an art than a science.

Another thing I learned is to make myself aware of the fact that certain traditions interpret certain passages according to their tradition, rather than allowing the passage to speak the truth to them. I am trying to discipline myself to suspend these traditional interpretations in order to look at these passages afreash. One technique that I have adopted is to assume that the early church didn't have access to each and every letter Paul wrote, for instance. I think we should be able to understand the letter to the Galatians, for instance, apart from all of his other writings. A Galatian reader doesn't need the letter to the Romans in order to fully understand Paul's intent.

Given this perspective, I ask myself how the Galatian readers would have understood verse 16. What was the contemporaneous meaning of the term "Israel"? What did it mean to those living in the first century? I believe the common connotation for the word "Israel" pointed to the nation and the people living in Judea and the surrounding regions. And without any other guidence or clue to the contrary, the common connotation is understood, because the common connotation has the substantial weight of precedent usage. The word "Israel" occurs over 2300 times in the Bible. Given that this word denotes the Jewish people and nation, most of the time, the man Jacob sometimes, and out of these, only two cases might refer to the church, the onus is on those who claim that Paul coined the term "Israel" for other than the common usage. And the only evidence we should accept as proof that Paul coined the term is his explicit word to that effect. Galatians 6:16 is not one of those places. He simply doesn't give us any clue from the text that he has coined a new term.

I believe the distinction between those who walk by this rule and the Israel of God are included in verse 15 in which he says, "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." Notice that when he says, "neither is circumcision anything" he doesn't leave it there. Most people seem to read it this way as if Paul has just eliminated circumcision, but he goes on to say, "nor uncircumcision". In this he isn't eliminating circumcision, but rather he is saying that the two can coexist in the new man. Those who believe that circumcision is important are free to fellowship with those who don't. Neither one is anything.

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 01:56 AM
I believe the distinction between those who walk by this rule and the Israel of God are included in verse 15 in which he says, "For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." Notice that when he says, "neither is circumcision anything" he doesn't leave it there. Most people seem to read it this way as if Paul has just eliminated circumcision, but he goes on to say, "nor uncircumcision". In this he isn't eliminating circumcision, but rather he is saying that the two can coexist in the new man. Those who believe that circumcision is important are free to fellowship with those who don't. Neither one is anything.


And in context that “one new man” includes “the circumcision” (Jews) and the "uncircumcised" (Gentiles) both one in the body of Christ – the Israel of God - both one in the “commonwealth of Israel.” What about it Rog - are Jew and Gentile one in the spiritual “commonwealth of Israel” by the blood of Christ. If the ekklesia (Jew and Gentile) is the spiritual commonwealth of Israel why is it not also the Israel of God?
Therefore remember that you, the nations, in time past were in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; and 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. But now in Christ Jesus you who were once afar off are made near by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, He making us both one, and He has broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them; and so that He might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity in Himself.
(Eph 2:11-16 MKJV)

BroRog
Mar 13th 2010, 03:08 AM
And in context that “one new man” includes “the circumcision” (Jews) and the "uncircumcised" (Gentiles) both one in the body of Christ – the Israel of God - both one in the “commonwealth of Israel.” What about it Rog - are Jew and Gentile one in the spiritual “commonwealth of Israel” by the blood of Christ.Nope. The commonwealth of Israel is the country of Israel, not an idealized, spiritual Israel. In Ephesians 2, Paul is not saying that the Gentiles entered the commonwealth of Israel. On the contrary, he reminds them that they are not part of it. That's his point. He is saying that the Gentiles gained access to God via the Holy Spirit rather than entering the temple grounds through the wall of separation.

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 03:10 AM
Did you forget about Ezekiel 37-39 or Zechariah 14.


What about Ezekiel 37-39 and Zechariah 14?

kay-gee
Mar 13th 2010, 03:44 AM
God is not done dealing with the nation of Israel.

In an around about way, I suppose I agree. He will be dealing with them at the Great White Throne Judgement.

all the best...

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 04:08 AM
Nope. The commonwealth of Israel is the country of Israel, not an idealized, spiritual Israel. In Ephesians 2, Paul is not saying that the Gentiles entered the commonwealth of Israel. On the contrary, he reminds them that they are not part of it. That's his point. He is saying that the Gentiles gained access to God via the Holy Spirit rather than entering the temple grounds through the wall of separation.
You are mistaken again, Rog – at Sinai, God made Israel into a commonwealth, or a kingdom and the nation of Israel (save the remnant) at the time of Christ rejected her Messiah. Jesus told the Jews that because of their unbelief God would take the kingdom (commonwealth) away from that unbelieving nation and gave it to a “new holy nation," i.e., Jew and Gentile would finally be one "in Christ". God only has one holy nation and that one kingdom/commonwealth today is the church of God comprised of Jew and Gentile who accept the Messiahship of Jesus Christ.

The secular nation of Israel ceased to be that holy nation when she rejected the Son of God – as Jesus told that nation of unbelievers “the ax already lies against the roots of the trees”. The true Israel of God today are those of every nation who “shall walk by this rule” (Gal 6:16) – what rule? – The rule that *redemption is only through the work of Jesus Christ on the Cross*. Who walks by this rule today - the true Israel of God – the commonwealth of Israel – “the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all” (Gal. 4:26).
Gal 4:26 But Jerusalem which is above - The spiritual Jerusalem; the true church of God. Jerusalem was the place where God was worshipped, and hence, it became synonymous with the word church, or is used to represent the people of God...all who are true Christians, whether we are by birth Jews or Gentiles. ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Don't think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our forefather.' For I tell you that God can raise up descendants for Abraham from these stones! The ax already lies against the roots of the trees. So every tree not producing good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. (Mat 3:9-10 ISV)

Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing out its fruits. And he who falls on this Stone shall be broken, but on whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
(Mat 21:43-44 MKJV)

nzyr
Mar 13th 2010, 06:13 AM
The Jews are still God's people though.

kay-gee
Mar 13th 2010, 11:36 AM
The Jews are still God's people though.

The whole point, that has been explicity expressed in the last few posts including scripture references, is that NO, the Jews are not still Gods people. Gods people are those that worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Gods people are reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ alone. His Holy Nation is the Church of Jesus Christ.

all the best...

RogerW
Mar 13th 2010, 12:34 PM
Hello RW - I think “ekklēsia” (church) in Acts 7:38 may be better rendered "congregation” in this passage - meaning the people of Israel gathered with Moses at Mt. Sinai…
This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him at Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. He received living oracles to give to us. (Act 7:38 ESV)

This is he who was in the congregation in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him in Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living words to give to us, (Act 7:38 MKJV)The “congregation of Israel” was a *type* of the church of Christ (the Lord's church being the antitype). Just as Moses, the mediator of the Old Covenant was “a type” of Christ Jesus – Jesus being the antitype - Jesus being the Mediator of a “better covenant” (Heb_8:6). Jesus said He *would build* (future tense) the church of Christ and the gates of Hades would not prevail against it (Matthew 16: 18), therefore we see the Lord’s church did not exist before the first century events surrounding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

The church of God was established on the first Pentecost after the Lord's resurrection. It was built upon Peter's confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God – a truth not revealed until the first century. The notion that the Jewish “church in the wilderness” was the “church of Jesus Christ” is a false notion but to say the Jewish "church" was a *type of the Lord’s church* would be a correct statement.
A type is a shadow cast on the pages of Old Testament history by a truth whose full embodiment or antitype is found in the New Testament revelation… ~ Wick Broomall

Hi Lh,

Would we argue that the everlasting covenant God made with His people, Israel was only an antitype? Of course not! The house of Israel exclusively were the Lord's "called out" people, His church/congregation in the wilderness before Christ' advent. That is why after Christ' advent the unfaithful branches were removed. It would make no sense for the Lord to graft faithful Gentiles into a people, a covenant people, His body and bride if Israel were not His church/congregation.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Mar 13th 2010, 12:44 PM
The whole point, that has been explicity expressed in the last few posts including scripture references, is that NO, the Jews are not still Gods people. Gods people are those that worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Gods people are reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ alone. His Holy Nation is the Church of Jesus Christ.

all the best...

Exactly KG! The Jews, like any other people in the world can still be reconciled to God through Christ, by grace through faith. The view that God, sometime in the future will save an ethnic people and re-establish the law of Moses, that Christ has perfectly fulfilled is simply not true. Now is the day of salvation for all people of faith!

Many Blessings,
RW

nzyr
Mar 13th 2010, 01:30 PM
You're wrong. God still cares about them.

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

And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (Romans 11:28)

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 01:55 PM
Hi Lh,

Would we argue that the everlasting covenant God made with His people, Israel was only an antitype?


“This is My blood of the covenant which is to be shed on behalf of many for forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).
We would argue that God’s everlasting covenant of grace ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ which brings peace with God “through the blood of the eternal covenant” is offered to all – Jew and Gentile.
Now may the God of peace (who brought again our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant) make you perfect in every good work to do His will, working in you that which is well pleasing in His sight through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. (Heb 13:20-21 MKJV)This eternal covenant is God’s reality and the offer of salvation through the blood of Christ is made to all mankind…
'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.' ~ Jesus Christ

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 02:03 PM
You're wrong. God still cares about them.


No one is saying God does not care about the physical Jew today - He does. God wants all to *come to knowledge* of Him and be saved. The point being made is the physical nation of Israel is no longer God's chosen people. God's holy nation today consists of all who call upon the name of the Lord - those saved by the blood of Christ - and that holy nation is the church of God (Jew and Gentile) - the Israel of God today. Our prayer for physical Israel today is Paul's prayer..."my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is for it to be saved."
Brothers, truly my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is for it to be saved. For I bear record to them that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God's righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes. (Rom 10:1-4 MKJV)

thedee
Mar 13th 2010, 02:05 PM
What about Ezekiel 37-39 and Zechariah 14?

I pointed these passages out to the person I replied to showing that all was not fulfilled in AD 70 but 1948 also with the regathering of the Jews back to their land.

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 02:19 PM
I pointed these passages out to the person I replied to showing that all was not fulfilled in AD 70 but 1948 also with the regathering of the Jews back to their land.
Where exactly is the prophecy that Israel would be returned to the land in 1948 in disbelief and remain in disbelief? The truth remains - any future hope for national Israel is hope through the blood of Christ. Any other hope is a false hope. God no longer needs a temple built with hands. God does not need a revised Mosaical system with animal sacrifices and restored Levitical priesthood. God will not restore a Jewish theocracy in Israel in some future ‘millennium’. The shadows of Judaism are forever redundant – the reality of Christ is here.

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 13th 2010, 03:19 PM
Why limit God and say that Israel cannot be saved any longer?

If some of us here would agree that God is sovereign in all things [this is to only those for whom this fits], and that a man's salvation is for God, by God, of God, in God, through God, because of God, and God alone, least any man should boast, why then can He not save Israel within the Last Days when He comes in Glory and they then See Him for who He is and each come in faith?

Hoping logically that those here who agree God is sovereign in Salvation also agree that He could do that, right? It's not physically impossible? It's not conditionally impossible then, right? For salvation is of the Lord. For God saved Jews as the early church - before any gentile became voting members, right? In fact as the church grew to accept gentiles, James who was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, gave his position that the gentiles didn't need to be circumcised, however, they were to abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood, which is what God has given to the Jews.

In fact let's look at Acts 15 closer.

Acts 15:13-29
After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, "Brethren, listen to me.

"Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. "With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 'AFTER THESE THINGS I will return, AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN, AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS, AND I WILL RESTORE IT, SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,' SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO. "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas--Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, and they sent this letter by them, "The apostles and the brethren who are elders, to the brethren in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia who are from the Gentiles, greetings. "Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have disturbed you with their words, unsettling your souls, it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Therefore we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell."

So the early church was Jewish and the Gentile were 'grafted' in to the church. We then learn that Paul turns his efforts toward the gentiles, mainly because of the time of a hardening of the Jews had come... so that through grace through faith, that the world of non-Jews --- again elected before the foundation of the world --- would hear the Gospel and come to faith.

But we also know that Paul never renounced his Jewishness, still observed the Jewish religious holidays, went to synagogues preaching and teaching the Gospel.

So if God is sovereign in Salvation's call, and that there is no physical reason why God can't save them in the last days as a nation, and that there is no conditional reason why God cannot elect each and every one of Israel if He declares to save them and give them His Spirit and writes on each of their hearts - His laws -- as He is doing for you and I; and if the Word is replete - that God promised that one day all Israel will be saved, why then can't the church see that it's by His Grace we are saved -- and that we submit to God's authority and let God do what He has purposed and declared what He will do?

Now I'm asking this question to all who see that Israel as a nation of history past... that you are declaring that today, all the promises give to Israel are now somehow applied to the church. That when in fact as a nation, God has scattered them for over 1900 years for what they have done in rejecting Christ as Lord and Savior - for by God's chastening love.... and as it was foretold within Scriptures that this would be..... and that God will equally bring them back again as a nation to habitat the same land that was given to Isaac by God.

Today we see God's hand working, for Israel is again a nation since 1948, and Jerusalem is again the capitol since 1967 -- for God is working in bringing them back for the next phase.... for if you look discerningly towards scripture, Israel will first be blinded again as a nation and enter into a false covenant with a group of nations -- thinking that peace has finally arrived, and many things will happen that are found within the word, but God will intervene and well, salvation will come for all Israel, as God has elected, one by one through Faith in Christ.


For His glory...

RbG

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 03:29 PM
Why limit God and say that Israel cannot be saved any longer?


Straw man RbG. No one says Israel cannot be saved – salvation is an individual event between God and the one to be saved. Jews today hear the same “gospel” as Gentiles. The hope for all mankind is salvation through the blood of Christ – any other hope including some imagined future Mosaical theocracy out of Jerusalem is a false hope.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 13th 2010, 03:37 PM
I ask myself how the Galatian readers would have understood verse 16. What was the contemporaneous meaning of the term "Israel"? What did it mean to those living in the first century? I believe the common connotation for the word "Israel" pointed to the nation and the people living in Judea and the surrounding regions. And without any other guidance or clue to the contrary, the common connotation is understood, because the common connotation has the substantial weight of precedent usage. The word "Israel" occurs over 2300 times in the Bible. Given that this word denotes the Jewish people and nation, most of the time, the man Jacob sometimes, and out of these, only two cases might refer to the church, the onus is on those who claim that Paul coined the term "Israel" for other than the common usage. And the only evidence we should accept as proof that Paul coined the term is his explicit word to that effect. Galatians 6:16 is not one of those places. He simply doesn't give us any clue from the text that he has coined a new term.

So, how would the Galatians have understood "sons of Abraham" (3:7 ff)? or "Abraham's seed" (3:29)? or "sons of God" (3:26)? or "adoption" (4:5)? or "heirs of God" (4:7)? or "children of promise" (4:28)? or "inheritors of the kingdom of God" (5:21)? Or who was God a Father to (1:4)? and to whom was promised His Spirit (3:2)?

Paul uses all these phrases in ways that were 'uncommon'. How then is "Israel of God" any different?


Most people seem to read it this way as if Paul has just eliminated circumcision, but he goes on to say, "nor uncircumcision". In this he isn't eliminating circumcision, but rather he is saying that the two can coexist in the new man. Those who believe that circumcision is important are free to fellowship with those who don't. Neither one is anything.

I completely disagree that Paul has in mind in this particular letter (given the situation he was addressing) that it's 'okay' for a Gentile to become circumcised. See 5:2-9 for a strong example.

BroRog
Mar 13th 2010, 04:23 PM
You are mistaken again, Rog – at Sinai, God made Israel into a commonwealth, or a kingdom and the nation of Israel (save the remnant) at the time of Christ rejected her Messiah. Jesus told the Jews that because of their unbelief God would take the kingdom (commonwealth) away from that unbelieving nation and gave it to a “new holy nation," i.e., Jew and Gentile would finally be one "in Christ". God only has one holy nation and that one kingdom/commonwealth today is the church of God comprised of Jew and Gentile who accept the Messiahship of Jesus Christ.I disagree with your understanding of Matthew 21:43-44. Jesus wasn't talking about taking the kingdom of God away from the nation of Israel. He was talking about taking the kingdom of God away from the scribes and Pharisees.

BroRog
Mar 13th 2010, 04:24 PM
The whole point, that has been explicity expressed in the last few posts including scripture references, is that NO, the Jews are not still Gods people. Gods people are those that worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Gods people are reconciled to Him through Jesus Christ alone. His Holy Nation is the Church of Jesus Christ.

all the best...Do you not agree with king David who often said, "God's chesed is everlasting"?

divaD
Mar 13th 2010, 04:53 PM
I disagree with your understanding of Matthew 21:43-44. Jesus wasn't talking about taking the kingdom of God away from the nation of Israel. He was talking about taking the kingdom of God away from the scribes and Pharisees.



BroRog, I can see how this would be correct. To say otherwise, would be to say that the kingdom of God was also taken away from the elect Jews, the believing Jews. And this would include Jews of the past, such as David. Was the kingdom of God taken from him also? I would think not.

RogerW
Mar 13th 2010, 05:58 PM
BroRog, I can see how this would be correct. To say otherwise, would be to say that the kingdom of God was also taken away from the elect Jews, the believing Jews. And this would include Jews of the past, such as David. Was the kingdom of God taken from him also? I would think not.

Hi David,

There were stipulations to the nation of Israel. The kingdom of God was never taken from those, whose mind is stayed on the Lord, and trusts in Him. God does not cast away His people whom He foreknows, those predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son. But God has indeed taken the kingdom away from those who remain in unbelief, trusting in their physical heritage, or their own works to be declared righteous before the Lord.

Isa*26:1 ¶ In that day shall this song be sung in the land of Judah; We have a strong city; salvation will God appoint for walls and bulwarks.
Isa*26:2 Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepeth the truth may enter in.
Isa*26:3 Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee: because he trusteth in thee.
Isa*26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:
Isa*26:5 ¶ For he bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust.

Many Blessings,
RW

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 06:14 PM
I disagree with your understanding of Matthew 21:43-44. Jesus wasn't talking about taking the kingdom of God away from the nation of Israel. He was talking about taking the kingdom of God away from the scribes and Pharisees.
You can disagree until the cows come home Rog but the truth remains the truth – Jesus clearly stated the kingdom of God would be taken from the nation of Israel (save the believing remnant) and given to a new holy nation “bringing out its fruits”. It was not only the Jewish leaders who rejected their Messiah - it was also the common folk. The new holy nation was, is and will forever be the church of God comprised of Jew and Gentile - one holy nation saved by the blood of Christ. The Israel of God today are those believers who “walk according to this rule” – the rule that the blood of Christ washes away our sins. The disbelieving secular nation of Israel remains in disbelief and cannot be the Israel of God today. Sorry my friend but you disagree with God’s word.
But now in Christ Jesus you who were once afar off are made near by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, He making us both one, and He has broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them; and so that He might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity in Himself. (Eph 2:13-16 MKJV)

Sirus
Mar 13th 2010, 06:27 PM
You can disagree until the cows come home Rog but the truth remains the truth – Jesus clearly stated the kingdom of God would be taken from the nation of Israel (save the believing remnant) and given to a new holy nation “bringing out its fruits”. It was not only the Jewish leaders who rejected their Messiah - it was also the common folk.This is how it has always been. Just a remnant.

BroRog
Mar 13th 2010, 06:43 PM
So, how would the Galatians have understood "sons of Abraham" (3:7 ff)? or "Abraham's seed" (3:29)? or "sons of God" (3:26)? or "adoption" (4:5)? or "heirs of God" (4:7)? or "children of promise" (4:28)? or "inheritors of the kingdom of God" (5:21)? Or who was God a Father to (1:4)? and to whom was promised His Spirit (3:2)?

Paul uses all these phrases in ways that were 'uncommon'. How then is "Israel of God" any different?As those who read and study the Bible we are intimately aware of the alternate usage of those phrases. We have the advantage of having read all of Paul's letters and we have become so familiar with his arguments that his alternate usage of common terms is second nature. We tend to forget, however, that Paul developed these alternate uses according to the art and craft of writing. Galatians 3:7 is a good example.

Paul asks a rhetorical question.



So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?Those of us sitting in the cheap seats (so to speak) already know what Paul is going to say and so while we throw our popcorn, we yell out, "by faith, by faith, by faith!" while others tell us, "shh, wait for it!" Paul is going to argue the case and he will develop his points one at a time.

Resolve:

God granted justification to Abraham in view of his faith and therefore it is those of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Argument:
1. The scriptures anticipated that God would justify the Gentiles by faith.

1.a. God initially preached the Gospel to Abraham when he announced "all the nations will be blessed "in you."


1.a.1 God declared that he would bless those who bless Abraham.
1.a.2 To bless Abraham is to agree with Abraham, affirming what Abraham affirmed.
1.a.3 To agree with Abraham is to be "in" Abraham.
1.a.4 Therefore God will bless those who affirm what Abraham affirmed, i.e. God can be trusted, he is both faithful and capable, he can bring into existence that which does not exist, and he can bring the dead back to life.

I won't go on to outline his entire argument, because for our discussion the first part of his argument is sufficient to illustrate the principle that an author, such as Paul, helps his readers know when he is using terms outside of their normal usage. But Paul hasn't yet defined our life in Christ in terms of being a "son of God." Where does the idea of a "son" come from?

In the section that follows, Paul will develop the concept that both Jew and Gentile are united in Christ, destined to share the common experience of eternal life in the coming age. Since Abraham anticipated this blessing in terms of an inheritance, Paul expounds on what this means through the use of a domestic analogy. The analogy is between a natural born child, who stands to inherit his father's wealth, and a slave child who has no anticipation of his beneficence.

Paul argues earlier that the Law was never intended to bring about a person's justification. But instead of leaving it at that, he explains God's actual purpose for the Law. He asserts that God intended the Law to act as a guardian, or a tutor, anticipating the messiah who was to come. But, he says, being under the tutor didn't make them sons; they were sons if they believed in Christ.

For our discussion we note that Paul's terminology of "sons" and etc. come from his analogy and his comparison between the children of slaves and the children of freemen. Paul has trained the reader to think in terms of being a "son" as opposed to a "slave" through his analogies in an argument he develops for why Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ. We aren't literally from the body of Abraham, we are "sons" in a difference sense, which is a sense he develops over the span of a few paragraphs.

Paul defines his terms as he goes along. We aren't literally sons of Abraham: we are sons in a different sense. We didn't literally come from Abraham's body, but by analogy, we await the inheritance of the same blessing Abraham anticipated because we share his same faith. We believe what Abraham believed. And so, since we stand to inherit the blessings as Abraham will, we are his "sons" of a sort.

So then, without Paul's explanations, arguments, and analogies, we wouldn't have a clue what he was saying if he simply said, "you are sons of Abraham" out of the blue. But having trained the reader to think in these terms, Paul can say to the Galatians, "you are sons who stand to inherit the promises" and we know precisely what he means. He was using standard and conventional terms in a new way to make a different point, explaining himself along the way.

In Galatians 6:16, we have no such explanation, argumentation, or analogy. We have seen that when Paul wants to adopt standard and conventional vocabulary to make new and profound points, he spends time in his discourse to develop the idea. But his mention of "Israel" doesn't come until three verses from the end of the letter, seemingly in the middle of an invocation after his concluding remarks. The burden of proof is on those who say that "Israel" is an old word used in a new sense, given the fact that Paul hasn't yet given it a new sense.


I completely disagree that Paul has in mind in this particular letter (given the situation he was addressing) that it's 'okay' for a Gentile to become circumcised. See 5:2-9 for a strong example.That's right. Given what Paul said to the Galatians, there is no reason for them to get circumcised, and he makes a stronger point when he says that if they seek justification from God through circumcision, Christ is of no benefit to them.

However, we take his point too far if we think that Paul has banned circumcision altogether. I thing he would suggest to his kinsmen that if they, too, relied on their circumcision rather than faith to gain justification, that Christ would be of no benefit to them. But he was in favor of having Timothy circumcised if helped him gain a hearing with his people.

divaD
Mar 13th 2010, 06:44 PM
But God has indeed taken the kingdom away from those who remain in unbelief, trusting in their physical heritage, or their own works to be declared righteous before the Lord.


RogerW, I agree. So wouldn't these be the Scribes and Pharisees, just like BroRog stated? Do the Scribes and Pharisees make up the entire ethnic Jews, or are they just a portion of them?

BroRog
Mar 13th 2010, 06:54 PM
You can disagree until the cows come home Rog but the truth remains the truth – Jesus clearly stated the kingdom of God would be taken from the nation of Israel.Where? You are interjecting this concept into the text. Matthew spends an entire lengthy chapter on this one point and to teach the entire chapter would take many posts. So I'll just quote one of the key verses and let you review the entire chapter yourself at your convenience.

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them.

losthorizon
Mar 13th 2010, 07:00 PM
RogerW, I agree. So wouldn't these be the Scribes and Pharisees, just like BroRog stated? Do the Scribes and Pharisees make up the entire ethnic Jews, or are they just a portion of them?
diva - you are missing the point that those of any group regardless of ethnicity, race, etc who reject the Christ cannot be of the household of faith - God's kingdom. Those Jews in the first century who rejected Jesus Christ had the kingdom of God taken away from them, whether Scribe, Pharisee, or average citizen. Only the believing remnant was added to the Lord's church...
Then they (Jews) that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls...and the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. (Act 2:41-47 KJV)

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 13th 2010, 09:05 PM
Straw man RbG. No one says Israel cannot be saved – salvation is an individual event between God and the one to be saved. Jews today hear the same “gospel” as Gentiles. The hope for all mankind is salvation through the blood of Christ – any other hope including some imagined future Mosaical theocracy out of Jerusalem is a false hope.

Not a straw man Lost H, it’s a misapplication of scriptures. God has declared that Israel will one day come to faith as a nation, for which many of the churches declare that those statements regarding Israel within the OT are now meant for the church. It's not inconceivable that one day when Christ appears, that the nation will see Him for who He is and repent and have faith...

The advocacy is not how salvation comes to a man, for it is always by faith in Christ.... the advocacy is to say that God will save Israel one day all within the same season, just as He foretells us He will within His word.


Genesis 17:7-21 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.

"I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." God said further to Abraham, "Now as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. "This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. "And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.

"And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants. "A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." [Circumcision is not a sign of salvation, but obedience from the household of Abraham to God.]

Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. "I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her." Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, "Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?" And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before You!" But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him [Isaac,] for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. "As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation. "But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year."

Exodus 6:2-8 God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them. "I also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they sojourned. "Furthermore I have heard the groaning of the sons of Israel, because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant. "Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, 'I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage. I will also redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. 'Then I will take you for My people, and I will be your God; and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. 'I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the LORD.'"

Ezekiel 36:16 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
17 "Son of man, when the house of Israel was living in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds; their way before Me was like the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity.
18 "Therefore I poured out My wrath on them for the blood which they had shed on the land, because they had defiled it with their idols.
19 "Also I scattered them among the nations and they were dispersed throughout the lands. According to their ways and their deeds I judged them.
20 "When they came to the nations where they went, they profaned My holy name, because it was said of them, 'These are the people of the LORD; yet they have come out of His land.'

21 "But I had concern 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, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.
23 "I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight.
24 "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.

25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

28 "You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.
29 "Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on you.
30 "I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field, so that you will not receive again the disgrace of famine among the nations.
31 "Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations.

32 "I am not doing this for your sake," declares the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel!"

Romans 11:7-36 What then? What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it [speaking of those elect Jews], and the rest were hardened; 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." And David says, "LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. "LET THEIR EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER." 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. Now if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles.

Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellow countrymen and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.

But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.

Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they [they being the nation] do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature [contrary to nature, meaning not being Jewish] into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in [well here it is, Israel, the nation, the apple of God’s eye, the nation is not part of the church, not replaced by the church, not set aside by the church... is partial or temporarily hardened or on hold until God’s appointed time of salvation]; 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."

From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they [again who is they?] are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy.

For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Servant89
Mar 13th 2010, 09:18 PM
EPH 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
EPH 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
EPH 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
EPH 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
EPH 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
EPH 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
EPH 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
EPH 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
EPH 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
EPH 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
EPH 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
EPH 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

EPH 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
EPH 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
EPH 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

ROM 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
ROM 12:4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
ROM 12:5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

1CO 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

1CO 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1CO 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1CO 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.

HEB 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
HEB 11:36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:
HEB 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;
HEB 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
HEB 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they (Israel) without us (the Church) should not be made perfect.
GAL 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.

EPH 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
EPH 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
EPH 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body (as Israel), and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

COL 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor
uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
COL 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.

1CO 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
1CO 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1CO 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
1CO 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

ACT 13:26 Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

ROM 1:16 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.

ROM 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
ROM 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
ROM 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
ROM 2:29 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.
ROM 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
ROM 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
ROM 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
ROM 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
ROM 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
ROM 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
ROM 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
ROM 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
ROM 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
ROM 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
ROM 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
ROM 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
ROM 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
ROM 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
ROM 4:11 And he 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:
ROM 4:12 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.
ROM 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

ROM 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
ROM 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
ROM 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
ROM 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

ROM 9:27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
ROM 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
ROM 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
ROM 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
ROM 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
ROM 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
ROM 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
ROM 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.
ROM 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
ROM 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
ROM 10:21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
ROM 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
ROM 11:2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
ROM 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
ROM 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
ROM 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
ROM 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
ROM 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
ROM 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
ROM 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
ROM 11:16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
ROM 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
ROM 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.ROM 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
ROM 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?ROM 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
ROM 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
ROM 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
ROM 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.
ROM 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. ROM 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
ROM 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
ROM 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

ROM 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

2CO 11:22 Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.

GAL 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
GAL 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
GAL 3:8 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.
GAL 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
GAL 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
GAL 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
GAL 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.
GAL 3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
GAL 6:16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Shalom

Nihil Obstat
Mar 14th 2010, 02:02 AM
Paul defines his terms as he goes along. We aren't literally sons of Abraham: we are sons in a different sense. We didn't literally come from Abraham's body, but by analogy, we await the inheritance of the same blessing Abraham anticipated because we share his same faith. We believe what Abraham believed. And so, since we stand to inherit the blessings as Abraham will, we are his "sons" of a sort.

So then, without Paul's explanations, arguments, and analogies, we wouldn't have a clue what he was saying if he simply said, "you are sons of Abraham" out of the blue. But having trained the reader to think in these terms, Paul can say to the Galatians, "you are sons who stand to inherit the promises" and we know precisely what he means. He was using standard and conventional terms in a new way to make a different point, explaining himself along the way.

In Galatians 6:16, we have no such explanation, argumentation, or analogy. ... The burden of proof is on those who say that "Israel" is an old word used in a new sense, given the fact that Paul hasn't yet given it a new sense.

I would say that the burden of the proof is on those who claim that the Israel of God included different people than, and therefore was a separate entity than, Abraham's children...

Nihil Obstat
Mar 14th 2010, 02:23 AM
That's right. Given what Paul said to the Galatians, there is no reason for them to get circumcised, and he makes a stronger point when he says that if they seek justification from God through circumcision, Christ is of no benefit to them.

However, we take his point too far if we think that Paul has banned circumcision altogether. I think he would suggest to his kinsmen that if they, too, relied on their circumcision rather than faith to gain justification, that Christ would be of no benefit to them. But he was in favor of having Timothy circumcised if helped him gain a hearing with his people.

Okay.. The point I was countering in your post was when you said, "Those who believe that circumcision is important are free to fellowship with those who don't." I think this is wrong (in the context of our discussion of Galatians), because circumcision isn't important. It may be important for evangelizing unsaved Jews, as in the case of Timothy (who was a Jew). But the thrust of Paul's letter to the Galatians is not that circumcision is okay for evangelizing - it's that circumcision for them, in their immaturity, is actually a major stumbling block hindering them from the liberty they have in Christ, and therefore they were not to become circumcised. This isn't a rule for everyone, but as in the vein of Rom. 14 or 1 Cor. 8, for them it was a rule. Why? Because Paul did not preach circumcision to them, but false brethren came in after him, and to them, circumcision was important. Did Paul say that it was okay for the Galatians to fellowship with these men? I mean, that is, if it's okay to fellowship with those who think circumcision is important? Absolutely not! Rather he commanded that they forcefully remove them and their teachings from their midst! The Galatians were not ready for "well, circumcision is okay, just in its proper place", so you won't find that sentiment anywhere in this epistle.

losthorizon
Mar 14th 2010, 03:52 AM
Not a straw man Lost H, it’s a misapplication of scriptures. God has declared that Israel will one day come to faith as a nation...


You continue to misunderstand and misapply God’s word my friend – there is no promise that the nation of Israel (or any nation) will "as a whole" come to faith in Christ. The remnant of physical Israel (God’s elect) will be saved but “all Jews” in totality will never believe...
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." — Jesus Christ

Nihil Obstat
Mar 14th 2010, 06:00 AM
The remaining Israelites will reconstitute themselves and at that time God will make a new covenant with the survivors. At that time, Israel will live under a monarchy, with Jesus as the king. God will bring the surrounding nations against her and this time God will save Israel, making it evident that God is both real and able to take care of his people.

...

While the blood of Jesus is the blood of the New Covenant, I don't think Jesus made the New Covenant with Israel as predicted by Jeremiah. This has yet to take place. We need to keep and maintain a distinction between our relationship with God as individuals and Jacob's relationship with God as a nation. One could say that some of the eternal aspects of the New Covenant are in effect today, namely, that God is saving individuals by the blood of the Lamb and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, what God does for us individually today, he will do for an entire nation tomorrow.

Considering that 1) the new covenant subsumes the first, or the old, covenant (Heb. 7:12, 18; 8:13; 10:9), and that 2) the first covenant concerned itself with sacrifice and instruction, then it follows that 3) the new covenant pertains to a better sacrifice and better instruction - right? This is, after all, the primary emphasis of such OT passages as Jer. 31:31-34 and Eze. 36:26-27, and the main thrust of NT Scripture, such as 2 Cor. 3 and the whole of Hebrews, is it not? The "first" covenant, as it is called, is the one that God made with Israel and Judah's fathers "in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer. 31:32) - the covenant made at Sinai. The first covenant is not the Adamic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Land Covenant, or the Davidic Covenant, though, being first, it affects them all (and therefore the new does so all the more). This new covenant is also called the "everlasting" covenant, to contrast not the temporary nature of the first, but the "weakness and unprofitableness" of the first (Heb. 7:18-19). The ratifying blood of the new covenant is, as you agreed, the blood of Jesus, and Jesus is the Mediator not of a faulty covenant (Heb. 8:7), but of the better (8:6), new covenant (9:15), which is everlasting (13:20).

So, according to this clear line of reasoning, if God has not made the new covenant with Israel as Jeremiah foretold, as you presently maintain, then Israel is not in covenant with God, and is therefore not His people. Covenants are only cut once, and Jesus will only shed the blood of that covenant the one time (Heb. 9:24-28). The Mosaic Law has been changed out from having only the letter to having the Law-giver. The Law retains its potency, and yet ironically has been made obsolete in the coming of the One who wrote the Law. The nation of Israel cannot, then, attempt to adhere to the Law and expect God to honor their zeal, for in their clutching to the letter they murdered the Man whom the letter pointed them to! No, Israel outside of the new covenant cannot be "the people of God", for they have cast away as a profane thing His everlasting covenant, the means of their redemption, summed up in the Person and Spirit of Christ Jesus.

You may reply that though they are presently without sacrifice or instruction, they are still Abraham's descendants. Yet Paul lays out very clearly, as you yourself noted, that Abraham's seed consists of those in Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant, both those of Jewish decent and of Gentile decent, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. So no, not all who are children are children of promise, but the children of promise - of the better covenant (Gal. 4:24) - are only those who are born of the Jerusalem above (Gal. 4:28).

You may reply that though they are presently outside of the promises of Abraham, they are still David's promised subjects. Yet again, Paul takes the Davidic Covenant made in 2 Sam. 7 and, in 2 Cor. 6:18, explicitly attributes that oath to the church in Corinth. God dwells amongst His people, and the NT authors consistently proclaim God's people to be never again centered around the Torah, which was exclusive, but around Christ who fulfills Torah, who is inclusive.

And therein I find that God did indeed make that covenant with Judah and Israel as spoken of in Jeremiah, for Gentiles have always been able to be grafted into Abraham's descendants via adherence to the first covenant, becoming proselytes through physical circumcision. However, in ratifying the new covenant, which replaces, carries on, and expands the first covenant, Gentiles become proselytes (read: Jews) through adherence to the new covenant via circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. Thus, Israel is the church. And just as Gentiles had to adhere to the new covenant to become the people of God, so too did Israelites. There are not two separate, albeit parallel (even temporarily) tracks that God uses to interact with these two people groups, for the two are made one never again by the Mosaic Covenant, but now and forevermore by the New Covenant.

Amen and hallelujah! - astrongerthanhe

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 14th 2010, 01:02 PM
You continue to misunderstand and misapply God’s word my friend – there is no promise that the nation of Israel (or any nation) will "as a whole" come to faith in Christ. The remnant of physical Israel (God’s elect) will be saved but “all Jews” in totality will never believe...
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." — Jesus Christ


Hi Lost H,

How long can you continue to ignore scripture?

Ezekiel 36:16 Then the word of the LORD came to me saying,
17 "Son of man, when the house of Israel was living in their own land, they defiled it by their ways and their deeds; their way before Me was like the uncleanness of a woman in her impurity.
18 "Therefore I poured out My wrath on them for the blood which they had shed on the land, because they had defiled it with their idols.
19 "Also I scattered them among the nations and they were dispersed throughout the lands. According to their ways and their deeds I judged them.
20 "When they came to the nations where they went, they profaned My holy name, because it was said of them, 'These are the people of the LORD; yet they have come out of His land.'

21 "But I had concern 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, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.
23 "I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight.
24 "For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.

25 "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.
26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

28 "You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.
29 "Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on you.
30 "I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field, so that you will not receive again the disgrace of famine among the nations.
31 "Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations.

32 "I am not doing this for your sake," declares the Lord GOD, "let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel!"


Surely, you are not stating that this applies to the church, are you?

losthorizon
Mar 14th 2010, 02:56 PM
How long can you continue to ignore scripture?

<snip>

Surely, you are not stating that this applies to the church, are you?


Well RbG I didn’t think I was ignoring anything. Your passage in Ezekiel was fulfilled in part when the Jews were returned by God to their land from Babylonian captivity and it is *typical* of the Christian's redemption by the blood of Christ - so yes it does apply to the Lord’s church.

Questions for you – are you of the Dispensational persuasion that forces Ezekiel 40-48 to be applicable to a yet future “Millennial Kingdom” with the restoration of the old Mosaical system that forever ended at the cross? Does your theology require a reconstitution of the old Levitical priesthood that will require future animal scarifies for sin in a rebuilt temple made by hands after the *once for all time* sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross? Is this your pipe-dream?

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 14th 2010, 06:18 PM
Well RbG I didn’t think I was ignoring anything. Your passage in Ezekiel was fulfilled in part when the Jews were returned by God to their land from Babylonian captivity and it is *typical* of the Christian's redemption by the blood of Christ - so yes it does apply to the Lord’s church.

Questions for you – are you of the Dispensational persuasion that forces Ezekiel 40-48 to be applicable to a yet future “Millennial Kingdom” with the restoration of the old Mosaical system that forever ended at the cross? Does your theology require a reconstitution of the old Levitical priesthood that will require future animal scarifies for sin in a rebuilt temple made by hands after the *once for all time* sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross? Is this your pipe-dream?

Hi Lost H,

Let me remind you that you started this conversation in reply to an open post of mine, so I was under the assumption we can do this in a civil manor when I offered you a reply. Your sarcasm and a bit of anger set aside…. [“Is this your pipe-dream”] I’ll reply one more time to address your post, in an effort to keep the hand of fellowship extended.

If you say that Ezekiel has been fulfilled, then you should be able to pinpoint the years that it happened? Where does the word say that this happened after the Babylonian captivity? And equally then, if all Israel had God’s Spirit and Laws within their hearts at this time, you should also equally be able to find within scriptures when God changed His mind. History [as well as the bible] doesn’t agree with you then, for after the Babylonian captivity, then came the Medo-Persians, then after the Medo-Persians - the Greeks, then after the Greeks - the Romans…. If God set’s a covenant with Isaac, how could it be fulfilled after the time of the Babylonian captivity, especially if it’s an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:19 But God said, "No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

And I’m not a traditional, modified, reformed, or modern dispensationalist in definition, for I see scripture saving by grace through faith in Jesus pre and post cross, to the Jew 1st, and then to the gentile, but as there are differing nationalities and economies today, God has declared that He has a plan and a purpose for the church and that He has a plan and a purpose for the nation Israel, as He declares within His covenants.

The church is not Israel, and Israel is not the church and to read back the NT scriptures into the Old Testament stating that the Church is now Israel not only ignores the good hermeneutic rule of antecedent theology, it also allegories scripture to mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.

So to your pipe-dream dig, yes, I see scripture pointing to a literal 1000 earthly kingdom of the Lord and His Christ on this earth yet to come, that Satan will be allowed to have a last season -[7 years in duration, 1st 3 1/2 years incognito via the Antichrist and his helper] to rage his wrath against man for being kicked out of heaven just prior to God’s wrath – which God's wrath will begin right after the sun darkens and the moon loses it’s light and the stars fall from the sky, the faithful in Christ are removed, and the sealing of the 144K representative from the 12 tribes of Israel begins.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 14th 2010, 06:37 PM
Surely, you are not stating that this [Eze. 36:16-32] applies to the church...?

This is what I'm attempting to clarify for everyone: the church is Israel. Gentiles have always been able to become "one man" with the Jews, they've always been able to be "grafted in" to Israel, they've always been able to become "inheritors with Abraham". This was not the new thing that Pentecost brought about (see Est. 8:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%208:17&version=NASB), for a very clear example). But the way that Gentiles became proselytes was by adhering to the first, or the old, covenant, which was given at Sinai. Through physical circumcision and faithful observance of the Torah, a Gentile could become a Jew. The reason that Gentiles could become partakers of Israel's promises through the Law was because it was at Sinai that Israel became God's people (Ex. 19:1-8). God's people were the people of Israel, the congregation in the wilderness who gathered around God, and followed Him and served Him.

The new covenant subsumed (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsumed) the old covenant, thereby making the first covenant obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Now Gentiles become Jews, not by observing the Mosaic covenant, but by observing the new covenant. The first covenant pertained to sacrifice and instruction, whereas the new covenant pertains to a better sacrifice (the once for all sacrifice of Jesus) and better instruction (the Law is overshadowed by the giving of the Law-giver, the indwelling Spirit). Israel is no longer, indeed, never again, defined as those who are entwined around God via the old covenant, but now and forevermore are defined as those who are God's people via the new covenant. Gentiles in Christ are made one "new" man with Israelites in Christ due to the new covenant, apart from physical circumcision. Furthermore (though it is not the main "problem" in the NT), ethnic Jews can only remain within "Israel" when they agree with the new covenant and how God has brought that covenant into being - through the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ Jesus. Israel, renewed and reconstituted around the new covenant, is the church, the congregation who gathers around Jesus, who follow Him wherever He goes and serve Him night and day.

Amen!

RogerW
Mar 14th 2010, 07:06 PM
This is what I'm attempting to clarify for everyone: the church is Israel. Gentiles have always been able to become "one man" with the Jews, they've always been able to be "grafted in" to Israel, they've always been able to become "inheritors with Abraham". This was not the new thing that Pentecost brought about (see Est. 8:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%208:17&version=NASB), for a very clear example). But the way that Gentiles became proselytes was by adhering to the first, or the old, covenant, which was given at Sinai. Through physical circumcision and faithful observance of the Torah, a Gentile could become a Jew. The reason that Gentiles could become partakers of Israel's promises through the Law was because it was at Sinai that Israel became God's people (Ex. 19:1-8). God's people were the people of Israel, the congregation in the wilderness who gathered around God, and followed Him and served Him.

The new covenant subsumed (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsumed) the old covenant, thereby making the first covenant obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Now Gentiles become Jews, not by observing the Mosaic covenant, but by observing the new covenant. The first covenant pertained to sacrifice and instruction, whereas the new covenant pertains to a better sacrifice (the once for all sacrifice of Jesus) and better instruction (the Law is overshadowed by the giving of the Law-giver, the indwelling Spirit). Israel is no longer, indeed, never again, defined as those who are entwined around God via the old covenant, but now and forevermore are defined as those who are God's people via the new covenant. Gentiles in Christ are made one "new" man with Israelites in Christ due to the new covenant, apart from physical circumcision. Furthermore (though it is not the main "problem" in the NT), ethnic Jews can only remain within "Israel" when they agree with the new covenant and how God has brought that covenant into being - through the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Christ Jesus. Israel, renewed and reconstituted around the new covenant, is the church, the congregation who gathers around Jesus, who follow Him wherever He goes and serve Him night and day.

Amen!

Absolutely Amen Astro! It is NOT replacement theology, it is how "all Israel shall be saved." When the last Gentile is grafted into Israel by grace through faith in Christ, then Israel is complete.

Many Blessings,
RW

losthorizon
Mar 14th 2010, 07:33 PM
Let me remind you that you started this conversation in reply to an open post of mine, so I was under the assumption we can do this in a civil manor when I offered you a reply. Your sarcasm and a bit of anger set aside…. [“Is this your pipe-dream”]

pipe dream - a fantastic hope or plan that is generally regarded as being nearly impossible to achieve. ~ WikipediaPeace my brother - no sarcasm intended RbG and I am certainly not angry – the Dispensational notion that God will once again require the sacrifice of animals for sin offering in a future Mosaical kingdom is a fantastically false hope that is impossible to achieve i.e., a pipe-dream.


If you say that Ezekiel has been fulfilled, then you should be able to pinpoint the years that it happened?

One need not ‘pinpoint’ the years to know it was fulfilled but if you must force Ezekiel 40-48 to be yet future (and you do) then you must explain why God will once again require Levitical priests to offer the blood of bulls for sin offering after the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Such a non-biblical notion is an affront to the work of Christ to save us from our sins.


And he said to me, "Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: These are the ordinances for the altar: On the day when it is erected for offering burnt offerings upon it and for throwing blood against it, you shall give to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who draw near to me to minister to me, declares the Lord GOD, a bull from the herd for a sin offering. And you shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the ledge and upon the rim all around. Thus you shall purify the altar and make atonement for it. You shall also take the bull of the sin offering, and it shall be burned in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area. (Eze 43:18-21 ESV)

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'" When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:5-10 ESV)
And I’m not a traditional, modified, reformed, or modern dispensationalist in definition…
Please don't take this the wrong way but as the old axiom says… if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck…


The church is not Israel, and Israel is not the church and to read back the NT scriptures into the Old Testament stating that the Church is now Israel not only ignores the good hermeneutic rule of antecedent theology, it also allegories scripture to mean whatever the reader wants it to mean.
Au contraire – those who submit to the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile are the Israel of God today…those who walk by “this rule” - the true messianic community.
And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:16 ESV)

The Israel of God - The true Christians, called here the Israel of God, to distinguish them from Israel according to the flesh. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

And upon the Israel of God - The true church of God; all who are his true worshippers. ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Israel of God — not the Israel after the flesh, among whom those teachers wish to enroll you; but the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith (Gal_3:9, Gal_3:29; Rom_2:28, Rom_2:29; Phi_3:3). ~ A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

Israel of God - Then ὅσοι will refer to the individual Christians, Jewish and Gentile, and Israel of God to the same Christians, regarded collectively, and forming the true messianic community. ~ VINCENT'S WORD STUDIES
I see scripture pointing to a literal 1000 earthly kingdom of the Lord and His Christ on this earth yet to come, that Satan will be allowed to have a last season -[7 years in duration, 1st 3 1/2 years incognito via the Antichrist and his helper] to rage his wrath against man for being kicked out of heaven just prior to God’s wrath – which God's wrath will begin right after the sun darkens and the moon loses it’s light and the stars fall from the sky, the faithful in Christ are removed, and the sealing of the 144K representative from the 12 tribes of Israel begins.

But the kingdom of Christ is on this earth today - you are a couple of thousand years too late my friend. Those believers in the apostolic era were delivered from Satan and transferred into the kingdom of his beloved Son via the blood of Christ......
The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you. ~ Luke 17:20-21

giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. ~ Col 1:12-14

BroRog
Mar 15th 2010, 12:28 AM
Okay.. The point I was countering in your post was when you said, "Those who believe that circumcision is important are free to fellowship with those who don't." I think this is wrong (in the context of our discussion of Galatians), because circumcision isn't important. It may be important for evangelizing unsaved Jews, as in the case of Timothy (who was a Jew). But the thrust of Paul's letter to the Galatians is not that circumcision is okay for evangelizing - it's that circumcision for them, in their immaturity, is actually a major stumbling block hindering them from the liberty they have in Christ, and therefore they were not to become circumcised. This isn't a rule for everyone, but as in the vein of Rom. 14 or 1 Cor. 8, for them it was a rule. Why? Because Paul did not preach circumcision to them, but false brethren came in after him, and to them, circumcision was important. Did Paul say that it was okay for the Galatians to fellowship with these men? I mean, that is, if it's okay to fellowship with those who think circumcision is important? Absolutely not! Rather he commanded that they forcefully remove them and their teachings from their midst! The Galatians were not ready for "well, circumcision is okay, just in its proper place", so you won't find that sentiment anywhere in this epistle.I don't think Paul was saying that circumcision itself was wrong, but only that circumcision is not a means to gain justification from God. He wouldn't say that circumcision under any circumstance was wrong, only that teaching someone that God will not grant his favor or his justification unless a man is circumcised is a false gospel.

I believe you are right when you suggest that under the circumstances, Paul wouldn't say, "go ahead and get circumcised if you want." But my point wasn't to suggest that Paul would allow the Galatians to get circumcised. My point was to say that Paul wouldn't mind if the Galatians sat down to dinner with men from the circumcision party.

He says that Peter was acting the hypocrite when he refused to eat with the Gentiles when men from the circumcision party came to visit. The obvious alternative was to bring these men into the same dining room and share a meal with them. Paul's objection wasn't that Peter was eating with men from the circumcision party, but that Peter wasn't eating with the Gentiles out of fear.

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 15th 2010, 01:31 AM
pipe dream - a fantastic hope or plan that is generally regarded as being nearly impossible to achieve. ~ WikipediaPeace my brother - no sarcasm intended RbG and I am certainly not angry – the Dispensational notion that God will once again require the sacrifice of animals for sin offering in a future Mosaical kingdom is a fantastically false hope that is impossible to achieve i.e., a pipe-dream.


One need not ‘pinpoint’ the years to know it was fulfilled but if you must force Ezekiel 40-48 to be yet future (and you do) then you must explain why God will once again require Levitical priests to offer the blood of bulls for sin offering after the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Such a non-biblical notion is an affront to the work of Christ to save us from our sins.


And he said to me, "Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD: These are the ordinances for the altar: On the day when it is erected for offering burnt offerings upon it and for throwing blood against it, you shall give to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who draw near to me to minister to me, declares the Lord GOD, a bull from the herd for a sin offering. And you shall take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the ledge and upon the rim all around. Thus you shall purify the altar and make atonement for it. You shall also take the bull of the sin offering, and it shall be burned in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area. (Eze 43:18-21 ESV)

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'" When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He does away with the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10:5-10 ESV)
Please don't take this the wrong way but as the old axiom says… if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck…


Au contraire – those who submit to the Messiahship of Jesus Christ, whether Jew or Gentile are the Israel of God today…those who walk by “this rule” - the true messianic community.
And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God. (Gal 6:16 ESV)

The Israel of God - The true Christians, called here the Israel of God, to distinguish them from Israel according to the flesh. ~ Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

And upon the Israel of God - The true church of God; all who are his true worshippers. ~ Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Israel of God — not the Israel after the flesh, among whom those teachers wish to enroll you; but the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith (Gal_3:9, Gal_3:29; Rom_2:28, Rom_2:29; Phi_3:3). ~ A Commentary on the Old and New Testaments by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

Israel of God - Then ὅσοι will refer to the individual Christians, Jewish and Gentile, and Israel of God to the same Christians, regarded collectively, and forming the true messianic community. ~ VINCENT'S WORD STUDIES
But the kingdom of Christ is on this earth today - you are a couple of thousand years too late my friend. Those believers in the apostolic era were delivered from Satan and transferred into the kingdom of his beloved Son via the blood of Christ......
The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you. ~ Luke 17:20-21

giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. ~ Col 1:12-14

Well, I’m not going to quote the definition of sarcasm nor talk about what ducks are in rebuttal, for to some degree you are also a dispensationalist in your thinking, for your are saying that it’s an age of Grace as well as an age that the church replaces Israel of the OT, for by definition -- is what constitutes a dispensation. Your error is quite common though, for I see that you take the same approach as others have taken and fashion the meaning to your understandings. But my challenge to folks and now to you is to let the scriptures supply the meaning and not bring the meaning to scripture, which is what allegory does.

Look closer to the context of Ezekiel, look along with Isaiah, look closer to Joel, look closer to Daniel and see what God says to Israel. Hear and understand this is God reaching to the Jews, so for now - forget the new Testament, for that hasn’t been written yet.

Then come back to Ezekiel. Notice the warnings, notice the judgment, notice the promise, and also notice the new temple... and notice that it’s not as the temple that Solomon built or that Ezra and Nehemiah also built in the years to come. Compare them. See the vast differences. See the sizing. then go back and compare them to Solomon's temple and to Nehemiah's rebuilt temple. The 1st two are as the same... The one Ezekiel described is different, way different. If completed in the past when was it done? Then notice that David will reign and be the prince among them


Now to the Israel of God... So you say that this is to the church...

Let’s go to the scripture to see...

As we see the text, the reference of Israel of God better refers to those Jews truly converted as true believers.

Paul opens Galatians with condemnation, for many were deserting the gospel of faith through grace and were proselytizing a different gospel, for which demonstrated that many were not of Christ. Paul was disciplining, correcting, and accusing. Paul’s mission was to set the Gospel straight with them, to correct false teaching and to mark and identify those false ‘Jewish Christians’ who were corrupting the Gospel of Christ.

Grammatically speaking we then see in Chapter 6 verse 11 through 16 that many Jews who stated that they were Christians wanted the gentiles to be as the Jews and be circumcised, for which Paul states whether circumcised or uncircumcised it has no bearing as believers, for both are new creations in Christ. Then in vs16, it states: for as many who will walk according to this rule... what then is this rule? That there is no need for physical circumcision, for true believers are a new creation. Then the text goes on to say that peace and mercy will be upon them... Who again is them? True believers, right?

But then the text singles out another group, and upon the Israel of God? I submit that believers - having just been defined - also includes the Israel of God, for who Paul is specifically calling out this group, to those Jews for who Paul is writing to in Galatia that are genuine Jewish believers in Christ. I don’t see the title of Israel of God applying to the Church, but to those true believers who are of the house of Israel that Paul specifically includes to separate those false Jewish teachers amongst the genuine.

Again, Paul wrote to the Galatians to counter the judaizing false teachers who were undermining the central doctrine of justification by faith, and the ‘Israel of God’ called out by Paul is significant, for no where else within scriptures do we see this term… the Israel of God -- for Paul wants to say with distinction that it’s not all Jews that are false believers, but there are true Jewish Christians being are both Physical and Spiritual descendants of Abraham. All believing Jews would then be the Israel of God, for they are both ethnic and spiritually the true Israel as God will one day bring the nation, a heart at a time in mass succession. The spiritual kingdom is now, the physical worldly kingdom of our Lord is yet to come.


For His Glory...

RbG

losthorizon
Mar 15th 2010, 02:29 AM
…to some degree you are also a dispensationalist in your thinking…


You may be confused – the Dispensationalism I refer to and the Dispensationalism to which you appear to subscribe is the “systematized dispensationalism” linked to John Nelson Darby. This form of dispensationalism teaches much error. You didn’t defend your exegesis of Ezekiel 40-48 to be a yet future resurrection of the old Levitical priesthood needed to offer the blood of bulls for sin offering after the perfect one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Is this non-biblical notion not part of your version of dispensationalism? And what about the kingdom of Christ on earth today? You didn’t comment. Your theology teaches Christ’s kingdom is yet future but it has been right here on planet Earth for 2000 years. No comment?

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 15th 2010, 03:16 AM
You may be confused – the Dispensationalism I refer to and the Dispensationalism to which you appear to subscribe is the “systematized dispensationalism” linked to John Nelson Darby. This form of dispensationalism teaches much error.

Dispensation: a general state or ordering of things

Nope... I will repeat what I stated that all folks are a dispensationalist to one degree or another, for even you are claiming a time of the church replacing Israel.




You didn’t defend your exegesis of Ezekiel 40-48 to be a yet future resurrection of the old Levitical priesthood needed to offer the blood of bulls for sin offering after the perfect one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

The highlighted is your words not mine, so I can't defend what I didn't say. Go back and reread my comments. And from those comments you can't possibly say that this already transpired. So when was this temple built?




Is this non-biblical notion not part of your version of dispensationalism?


Again, you are not understanding. Your comments about non-biblical is a smoke screen to say you see it another way, so just say so. Defend that it already happened then, show scripture when and where this happened... if you can.




And what about the kingdom of Christ on earth today? You didn’t comment. Your theology teaches Christ’s kingdom is yet future but it has been right here on planet Earth for 2000 years. No comment?


Stop and smell the coffee when you read... for I never stated that there isn't a spiritual kingdom today, again this is your inference in stating this back to me. My comment's have been about the value of future Israel, that as a nation God will save them. You should know my position by now over the years, so to say that is contrary to the many years of my contribution here.

What I am stating to folks who don't see that God still cares for the nation Israel is that they are missing scripture that states the contrary. And if you are among them, then I state that directly to you. This is not for debate, this is to extend the love of Christ to all peoples, for today is the day of salvation. But this day will not always be as 'easy', for the judgment of God is approaching.

But as He comes in the clouds, He will do what He says he will do, and if you disagree, then that's your prerogative

Nihil Obstat
Mar 15th 2010, 05:01 AM
Again, Paul wrote to the Galatians to counter the judaizing false teachers who were undermining the central doctrine of justification by faith, and the ‘Israel of God’ called out by Paul is significant, for no where else within scriptures do we see this term… the Israel of God -- for Paul wants to say with distinction that it’s not all Jews that are false believers, but there are true Jewish Christians being are both Physical and Spiritual descendants of Abraham. All believing Jews would then be the Israel of God, for they are both ethnic and spiritually the true Israel as God will one day bring the nation, a heart at a time in mass succession.

One of the things I think I'd like you to comment on is how a "Jew" (or any other synonymous name) was not necessarily a naturally born Jew, but has always included proselytized Gentiles. A Gentile who became a proselyte was called a Jew. The clearest example of this that I've been shown is Esther 8:17, which says of the Persians: "And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them." So, again, this is not offensive language, because it is not language that is foreign to the Scriptures. This truth, that Gentiles who observed Torah became Jews of equal standing with naturally born Jews, is found numerous times within the Law itself.

We see this in the NT as well. For example, why wasn't Peter dumbfounded in Acts 2:37-47 when the Spirit fell upon the proselytes (mentioned in Acts 2:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:10&version=NASB))? Because they were Jews - they became Jews. No, Peter wasn't taken aback at God's dealings until Acts 10, when Cornelius and his whole family received the same Spirit in the same manner as the Jews. Cornelius, albeit a God-fearer, was not considered a Jew according to Torah, because he was not circumcised. What the Spirit was indicating, indeed, joyously heralding, in falling upon this un-circumcised Gentile "who feared God with all his household" (Acts 10:2) was that by the new covenant, which subsumed the covenant given at Sinai, a Jew was no longer recognized by outward circumcision, but by inward circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ was essentially saying, "Cornelius is, by Me, now a Jew." It was in Acts 15 that it was finally decided on and agreed upon that circumcision was no longer the seal guaranteeing the covenantal promises of God, but that that seal was now the indwelling Spirit.

Praise be to our God and Father, and to His Christ!

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 15th 2010, 12:30 PM
One of the things I think I'd like you to comment on is how a "Jew" (or any other synonymous name) was not necessarily a naturally born Jew, but has always included proselytized Gentiles. A Gentile who became a proselyte was called a Jew.

Hi ASTH. Not sure I am understanding your line of questioning as to what you are looking for, but will give it a go based on how I’m reading your comments -- and you can clarify back if I am not following what you wanted to say.

First thought is to be Jewish is to be the nationality or better to be the genealogy from the lineage of Abraham and Isaac. If you look at Matthew chapter one, we see Mathew painstakingly details the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah as the Son of David and as the Son of Abraham. So when I am writing about being Jewish, or Israel, of Hebrew within this thread, I am following the genealogical line of the Nation.

As it relates to proselytized Gentiles, this moves from the genealogical line into the political line, for this moves as a person who would become a US citizen from another country, for let’s say they are ethnic [substitute any non-US country here] and they move and live here in the US, they were born a natural [non-US country citizen], but now have aligned to the values and opportunities that the US affords them and they become American by choice. Same with these Gentiles



The clearest example of this that I've been shown is Esther 8:17, which says of the Persians: "And many among the peoples of the land became Jews, for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them." So, again, this is not offensive language, because it is not language that is foreign to the Scriptures. This truth, that Gentiles who observed Torah became Jews of equal standing with naturally born Jews, is found numerous times within the Law itself.

Again the example where this means they believed as the Jews… in God. But as we go next to your Peter reference and the church, there will be a difference in grace and faith in Jesus Christ, both for the Jew and for the Gentile.



We see this in the NT as well. For example, why wasn't Peter dumbfounded in Acts 2:37-47 when the Spirit fell upon the proselytes (mentioned in Acts 2:10)? Because they were Jews - they became Jews. No, Peter wasn't taken aback at God's dealings until Acts 10, when Cornelius and his whole family received the same Spirit in the same manner as the Jews. Cornelius, albeit a God-fearer, was not considered a Jew according to Torah, because he was not circumcised. What the Spirit was indicating, indeed, joyously heralding, in falling upon this un-circumcised Gentile "who feared God with all his household" (Acts 10:2) was that by the new covenant, which subsumed the covenant given at Sinai, a Jew was no longer recognized by outward circumcision, but by inward circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ was essentially saying, "Cornelius is, by Me, now a Jew." It was in Acts 15 that it was finally decided on and agreed upon that circumcision was no longer the seal guaranteeing the covenantal promises of God, but that that seal was now the indwelling Spirit.

Praise be to our God and Father, and to His Christ!

Exactly so! What is being lost within this thread are the many facets of how God concurrently deals with Israel and how He deals with the Church today. Facet one is that Israel is God’s chosen Nation. He uses Israel to reveal Himself, to proclaim Salvation through the Prophets, and to instruct how to live as His children. Facet two, jumping over other facets in the process, is that Israel was disobedient to God many times and in many ways. Jumping over more facets to keep this brief, facet three -- that God sent Jesus Christ as Savior for the Jewish people, for they have been in and out of trouble for many centuries, and if only they had repented and believed, Jesus would have set up His earthly kingdom. Jumping still more, facet four. As we know, the Jews reject Christ as their Messiah, killing Him instead thinking they we doing God’s will, all the while Jesus was establishing grace through faith, and saving a remnant of both Jews and gentiles as the church -- and it’s here that I want to elaborate a bit.

God over the years has always made sure a remnant of Jews always survived the travesty of their oppression and judgment as a nation; for God has made sure that they never die off as a people. When Christ came on this earth, and in the mystery of how complex God works, Israel had the opportunity to repent and believe that Jesus was their Messiah, for which we know that they rejected God once again [according to the scriptures].

So looking at the Bible, both the OT and the NT were written by Jews, the disciples were Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and the early Church was 1st comprised of Jews, for which God then sent the Jewish disciples to evangelize to the world.

HOWEVER…. The message is not that Gentiles need also be Jewish to be Christian, nor does a Jew need to be a Gentile and renounce his heritage to be a Christian, for in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. And as you correctly infer, we are new creations in Christ. God has saved both a portion and a remnant of the Jews and a portion and a remnant of the Greek [gentile] by His Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ in building His church. Even today, we can see both Jew and gentile come to faith in Jesus Christ through God’s elective process of salvation through the Gospel and responding in faith by His grace.

And…. And this is the part that most folks here can’t see written within scriptures, that God has equally saved a remnant of natural Israel for the day when He will save the entire nation [and read through the same process by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ] as He has declared and promised. As Paul clearly defines within Romans 11.

I hope I’ve interpreted and addressed your questions appropriately.

Blessings… and for His Glory…

RbG

RogerW
Mar 15th 2010, 01:18 PM
Hi Astro,

"What the Spirit was indicating, indeed, joyously heralding, in falling upon this un-circumcised Gentile "who feared God with all his household" (Acts 10:2) was that by the new covenant, which subsumed the covenant given at Sinai, a Jew was no longer recognized by outward circumcision, but by inward circumcision of the heart by the Spirit. The Spirit of Christ was essentially saying, "Cornelius is, by Me, now a Jew." It was in Acts 15 that it was finally decided on and agreed upon that circumcision was no longer the seal guaranteeing the covenantal promises of God, but that that seal was now the indwelling Spirit."

This is how I also understand Israel. It has always been God's intent to save "true" Israel, not an ethnic people simply because they were Jews. This is why all those pre-Israel Gentiles (Abel, Seth, Noah etc) too belong to Israel, not by right of birth, but through the Spirit they too are among the elect Israel of God.

Many Blessings,
RW

thedee
Mar 15th 2010, 02:08 PM
Where exactly is the prophecy that Israel would be returned to the land in 1948 in disbelief and remain in disbelief?

There are numerous scriptures stating that God will bring his people back to their land. When the appointed time has come and the Lord returns they will recognize.

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 15th 2010, 02:26 PM
Hi ASTH. Not sure I am understanding your line of questioning as to what you are looking for, but will give it a go based on how I’m reading your comments -- and you can clarify back if I am not following what you wanted to say.

First thought is to be Jewish is to be the nationality or better to be the genealogy from the lineage of Abraham and Isaac. If you look at Matthew chapter one, we see Mathew painstakingly details the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah as the Son of David and as the Son of Abraham. So when I am writing about being Jewish, or Israel, of Hebrew within this thread, I am following the genealogical line of the Nation.

As it relates to proselytized Gentiles, this moves from the genealogical line into the political line, for this moves as a person who would become a US citizen from another country, for let’s say they are ethnic [substitute any non-US country here] and they move and live here in the US, they were born a natural [non-US country citizen], but now have aligned to the values and opportunities that the US affords them and they become American by choice. Same with these Gentiles



Again the example where this means they believed as the Jews… in God. But as we go next to your Peter reference and the church, there will be a difference in grace and faith in Jesus Christ, both for the Jew and for the Gentile.



Exactly so! What is being lost within this thread are the many facets of how God concurrently deals with Israel and how He deals with the Church today. Facet one is that Israel is God’s chosen Nation. He uses Israel to reveal Himself, to proclaim Salvation through the Prophets, and to instruct how to live as His children. Facet two, jumping over other facets in the process, is that Israel was disobedient to God many times and in many ways. Jumping over more facets to keep this brief, facet three -- that God sent Jesus Christ as Savior for the Jewish people, for they have been in and out of trouble for many centuries, and if only they had repented and believed, Jesus would have set up His earthly kingdom. Jumping still more, facet four. As we know, the Jews reject Christ as their Messiah, killing Him instead thinking they we doing God’s will, all the while Jesus was establishing grace through faith, and saving a remnant of both Jews and gentiles as the church -- and it’s here that I want to elaborate a bit.

God over the years has always made sure a remnant of Jews always survived the travesty of their oppression and judgment as a nation; for God has made sure that they never die off as a people. When Christ came on this earth, and in the mystery of how complex God works, Israel had the opportunity to repent and believe that Jesus was their Messiah, for which we know that they rejected God once again [according to the scriptures].

So looking at the Bible, both the OT and the NT were written by Jews, the disciples were Jews, Jesus was a Jew, and the early Church was 1st comprised of Jews, for which God then sent the Jewish disciples to evangelize to the world.

HOWEVER…. The message is not that Gentiles need also be Jewish to be Christian, nor does a Jew need to be a Gentile and renounce his heritage to be a Christian, for in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek. And as you correctly infer, we are new creations in Christ. God has saved both a portion and a remnant of the Jews and a portion and a remnant of the Greek [gentile] by His Grace through Faith in Jesus Christ in building His church. Even today, we can see both Jew and gentile come to faith in Jesus Christ through God’s elective process of salvation through the Gospel and responding in faith by His grace.

And…. And this is the part that most folks here can’t see written within scriptures, that God has equally saved a remnant of natural Israel for the day when He will save the entire nation [and read through the same process by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ] as He has declared and promised. As Paul clearly defines within Romans 11.

I hope I’ve interpreted and addressed your questions appropriately.

Blessings… and for His Glory…

RbG

In support for what I have been posting, I found this on the web that maybe communicates my thoughts better to the readers here than what I have been typing thus far.... :)

Excerpt from
http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/ep_0004.html


GOD'S RELATIONSHIP WITH ISRAEL
First of all, we must recognize that God has a special place in His heart for Israel and Jerusalem. In Deuteronomy 7:6 we read, "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth." God calls Jerusalem the "apple of His eye" in Zechariah 2:8. For a reason known only to God, He chose Israel to be His people, to reflect His glory, and to receive His blessing, and He chose Jerusalem as His dwelling place. It was God's eternal plan that Israel would be the conduit for His blessing and grace to spread to the entire world.

God's relationship with Israel is based on covenants. The Old Testament speaks of several covenants that God made with His people, Israel. The foundation of all of these covenants is the one made with Abraham, called the Abrahamic Covenant. Genesis 12 gives us the first encounter with the covenant:

Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen. 12:1-3)

Was this a temporary covenant that one day would be set aside? No. The Scriptures clearly state that this covenant (promise) from God is "everlasting" (Gen. 17:7-8). The Abrahamic Covenant involves three elements: A land, a nation, and a blessing. These three aspects of this covenant are enlarged in subsequent covenants, called the Palestinian (or land) covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the New Covenant. These covenants are also stated to be eternal covenants.

Over and over God promised to give the Promised Land to Israel "forever" (Gen. 13:15; Ex. 32:13; Is. 60:21; Ezek. 37:25). God promised David that one of his descendants would sit on his throne. God says that this throne will be established "forever" (2 Sam. 7:12-16; 1 Chron. 17:11-14; Ps. 89:35-37; Is. 9:6-7; Luke 1:32-33). And the New Covenant is called an "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20). God has made it very clear what He intends to do.

All of God's promises to Israel, which began with the Abrahamic Covenant, will finally be fulfilled in a future kingdom. As God states through the prophet Ezekiel:

"And My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them. And they shall live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons, and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant shall be their prince forever. And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. And the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever" (Ezek. 37:24-28).

We must note that all of these covenants were with the nation of Israel. Even the New Covenant is specifically stated to be "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31). God never made a covenant with the Church. Rather, the church now shares in the New Covenant. The New Covenant inaugurated by Jesus in the upper room with His disciples, is the same New Covenant spoken of in the book of Jeremiah, and the only covenant mentioned by the New Testament.

Paul, when speaking of the Church's relationship to Israel, never says that the Church has usurped Israel's place, or replaced Israel as the covenant people of God. Rather, Paul speaks of us as being "grafted in" (Rom. 11:17), "brought near" (Eph. 2:13), "descendants of Abraham" by faith (Rom. 4:16), "heirs" of Abraham's promise (Gal. 3:29), and as "sharing" in Israel's blessings (Rom. 15:27). Because of God's grace and his plan to extend His blessing to all peoples, we have been included with the Jews into the New Covenant.

HAS GOD REJECTED HIS PEOPLE?
But, you may ask, "Didn't God reject the Jews because of their disobedience?" I'm glad you asked. Some had asked this same question of the apostle Paul, and his answer was unequivocal: "May it never be!" (Rom. 11:1). Indeed, the 11th chapter of Romans is Paul's treatise on the role and future of Israel in God's plan of redemption. Rather than teaching replacement theology, the apostle Paul reasserts what was the clear teaching of the Old Testament - God is not through with Israel, and He has a grand plan for their future.

To summarize Romans 11, Paul tells us that God has not finally rejected His people, Israel. Rather, because of their disobedience, God has given them a "spirit of stupor", a "partial hardening". They have been broken off from the root, but will be grafted in again. During this time of Israel's blindness, the gospel has gone to the Gentiles in order to make the Jews jealous. We Gentiles, the wild olive tree, have been grafted into the root of the natural olive tree (Israel). Once the "fullness of the Gentiles" has come in (to salvation), then "all Israel will be saved." Regarding Israel, Paul states, "For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable" (Rom. 11:29).

That is, God's covenant with Israel in the Old Testament has not been revoked. Israel will inherit the blessings promised to them and one day in the future they will be grafted back in and "all Israel will be saved."

Paul is merely repeating what God had already said in the Old Testament. He has promised to never cast off Israel:

Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name: "If this fixed order departs From before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever." Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD. (Jer. 31:35-37)

I just looked out my window here in Central Florida and saw the sun. I guess God still has plans for Israel. [I being the author of this article's venue being from Florida, not RgB's]

SALVATION OF ISRAEL
Throughout the Old Testament God promised that one day salvation would come to Israel (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:24-28, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5; Joel 3:16-21; Zech. 10:6-12, 12:10). Though they had rebelled and sinned against God, He would one day have compassion on them, and bring them to salvation. Paul knew his Bible, and this is what he is speaking of in Romans 11.

KINGDOM RESTORED TO ISRAEL
One of God's promises in the Old Testament was the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel. He had allowed them to be conquered again and again because of their disobedience. But, consonant with their future national salvation would come a restoration of their kingdom as well. Again, there are a multitude of verses that promise this restored everlasting Kingdom (Jer. 23:5-6; Ezek. 37:24-28; Dan. 2:44; Amos 9:11-15; Obad. 17-21; Zech. 14:9-17).

The New Testament also reiterates the restoration of Israel's kingdom. When the Angel Gabriel came to Mary, and told her that she was to have a child by the Spirit of God coming upon her, he said of this child: " He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end." (Luke 1:32-33). What would these words have conveyed to Mary? Undoubtedly that her son would rule the nation of Israel, as her ancestor David did.

Later in His ministry Jesus promises his twelve disciples that, "…in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mt. 19:28). What could this mean except a restoration of the Kingdom to Israel?

In His Olivet Discourse recorded in Luke 21, Jesus spoke of the coming destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the dispersion of the Jews. He said, "… and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled" (Luke 21:24). This is a prophecy of the destruction by Rome of literal Jerusalem and its subsequent domination by Gentile powers. However, a time limit is placed on this domination by the word "until". Jesus says that one day the domination will end. What can this refer to but the restoration of Jerusalem to Jewish rule?

And finally, after the resurrection of Christ, His disciples ask him a pressing question: "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" It would have been simple for Him to say, "No. You don't understand. My kingdom is spiritual, not physical." But how did He answer His disciples? He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority…" (Acts 1:6-7). Had they misunderstood? Hardly. Jesus in no way diminishes their hopes of a restored kingdom; rather He says that the restoration of the kingdom to Israel will come in God's own timing.

CONCLUSION
Replacement theology does a disservice to the Church, Israel and the Word of God. The substitution of the Church for Israel runs counter to the expectations of the prophets, the expectations of Jesus' disciples and the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. If God will not fulfill His promises to Israel, what guarantee do we have that He will fulfill His promises to the Church? Has God rejected Israel? May it never be!

Nihil Obstat
Mar 15th 2010, 04:58 PM
First thought is to be Jewish is to be the nationality or better to be the genealogy from the lineage of Abraham and Isaac. If you look at Matthew chapter one, we see Mathew painstakingly details the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah as the Son of David and as the Son of Abraham. So when I am writing about being Jewish, or Israel, of Hebrew within this thread, I am following the genealogical line of the Nation.

As it relates to proselytized Gentiles, this moves from the genealogical line into the political line, for this moves as a person who would become a US citizen from another country, for let’s say they are ethnic [substitute any non-US country here] and they move and live here in the US, they were born a natural [non-US country citizen], but now have aligned to the values and opportunities that the US affords them and they become American by choice. Same with these Gentiles.

Again, you'll need to show that there was a difference between what you're calling "genealogical Jews" and "political Jews", especially given that Matthew lists no less than four Gentile proselytes in Jesus' genealogy.


The message is not that Gentiles need also be Jewish to be Christian, nor does a Jew need to be a Gentile and renounce his heritage to be a Christian, for in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek.

Well, I disagree with this, and here's why: First century Judaism was sectarian. There was the sect of the Sadducees, the sect of the Pharisees, the sect of the Essenes - though the majority of Jews did not belong to a sect. Now, the Sadduccean sect did not believe in a physical, bodily resurrection, nor did they believe in angels, whereas the Pharisean sect believed in both. However, despite these major differences, both sects were considered completely Jewish, as recognized by both the Jewish people and the Roman authorities.

After Pentecost, the Jewish people began to call the followers of Jesus "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5). In the attempts to condemn Paul before the Roman council, Paul used this to his advantage. How can the followers of Jesus be a new, and therefore illegal, religion if they are also considered a sect within the legalized religion of Judaism? Their witnesses did not agree (sounds familiar to when they tried to condemn Jesus), nor was their reasoning sound. This new sect was also called "the Way", and it's followers were called "Christians". It was called "the Way", not because it was the way to heaven, but because it was the way that all Israel was to follow. Every sect claimed to be the "true" Israel of God. Paul's argument was that the sect he was in was the true Israel, and that, ironically, those Jews who were condemning him were not true Jews.


And this is the part that most folks here can’t see written within scriptures, that God has equally saved a remnant of natural Israel for the day when He will save the entire nation [and read through the same process by repentance and faith in Jesus Christ] as He has declared and promised.

Where has He declared and promised such a thing? And how do the NT authors interpret those promises in light of Jesus' resurrection?

Nihil Obstat
Mar 15th 2010, 05:26 PM
Replacement theology does a disservice to the Church, Israel and the Word of God. The substitution of the Church for Israel runs counter to the expectations of the prophets, the expectations of Jesus' disciples and the clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. If God will not fulfill His promises to Israel, what guarantee do we have that He will fulfill His promises to the Church? Has God rejected Israel? May it never be!

That was a good article. I agree that Replacement Theology is an awful paradigm to hold to. What I am stating here is not Replacement Theology. Nowhere in my posts is there language of "replacement", but rather, glorious "fulfillment", which was the expectation of the prophets and the message of the apostles. As stated throughout the NT (see Luke 1:55, 70; 18:31-34; 21:22, 32-33; 22:22, 37; 24:25-27, 32, 44-49; Acts 3:18, 21, 24; 7:52; 8:35; 9:22; 10:43; 13:27, 29-33; 15:15; 17:1-4, 10-12; 18:28; 19:8; 26:22-23, 27; 28:23; John 1:45; 5:39, 46-47; Rom. 1:1-4; 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 1:10-13; 3:19; 4:6... and many more besides, I'm sure), all of the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms - all of them - spoke about those happy events recorded by the authors of the gospel accounts: Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension.

Now, if we were honest, we'd say that the OT Scriptures did not speak of Jesus, but rather of Israel. It was Israel that had to go through suffering before entering into her glory. What then were the NT authors claiming? And how did their message convert any of the Jews? They were claiming, as I have laid out in previous posts, that the new covenant has subsumed (not replaced) the old covenant, and that therefore Israel was no longer defined by adhering to the Torah, but now by clinging to the Spirit of Christ. Jews were saved by their message because it was in accord with what the Prophets wrote!

John146
Mar 15th 2010, 06:28 PM
Nope. The commonwealth of Israel is the country of Israel, not an idealized, spiritual Israel. In Ephesians 2, Paul is not saying that the Gentiles entered the commonwealth of Israel. On the contrary, he reminds them that they are not part of it. That's his point. He is saying that the Gentiles gained access to God via the Holy Spirit rather than entering the temple grounds through the wall of separation.Paul says that the Gentiles were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, but are not any longer. That would not be true if he was speaking of the country of Israel. Just as they were once "without Christ", once "strangers from the covenants of promise" and once "without God in the world" they were once "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel".

But they were brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13), which means they were no longer without Christ, no longer without God in the world, no longer strangers of the covenants of promise and no longer aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. This means he had to be speaking of the Israel of God there rather than the country of Israel. I say that because Christ's blood did not bring the Gentiles near the country of Israel. But it did bring them near to the Israel of God.

BroRog
Mar 15th 2010, 06:34 PM
Paul says that the Gentiles were once aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, but are not any longer. That would not be true if he was speaking of the country of Israel. Just as they were once "without Christ", once "strangers from the covenants of promise" and once "without God in the world" they were once "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel".

But they were brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13), which means they were no longer without Christ, no longer without God in the world, no longer strangers of the covenants of promise and no longer aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. This means he had to be speaking of the Israel of God there rather than the country of Israel. I say that because Christ's blood did not bring the Gentiles near the country of Israel. But it did bring them near to the Israel of God.I think Paul is saying something different. Paul says that the Ephesians were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, but he does NOT say "now you are near the commonwealth of Israel." He says that both the Jews and the Gentiles are united in a "new man", which is not Israel but Christ.

BroRog
Mar 15th 2010, 06:41 PM
This is what I'm attempting to clarify for everyone: the church is Israel. Gentiles have always been able to become "one man" with the Jews, they've always been able to be "grafted in" to Israel, they've always been able to become "inheritors with Abraham". This was not the new thing that Pentecost brought about (see Est. 8:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Esther%208:17&version=NASB), for a very clear example). But the way that Gentiles became proselytes was by adhering to the first, or the old, covenant, which was given at Sinai. Through physical circumcision and faithful observance of the Torah, a Gentile could become a Jew. The reason that Gentiles could become partakers of Israel's promises through the Law was because it was at Sinai that Israel became God's people (Ex. 19:1-8). God's people were the people of Israel, the congregation in the wilderness who gathered around God, and followed Him and served Him.What you describe is the process whereby a Gentile entered into Israel. In the Book of Romans and Galatians Paul argues that a man doesn't need to enter into Israel in order to find salvation. Paul doesn't argue that God provided a new way to enter Israel; he argued that a Gentile can find salvation apart from the covenant. In Ephesians he argues that both Jews and Gentiles have become a "new man" in Christ. Had he believed that the church is Israel, he would have argued that Gentiles unite with Jews in an old man.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 15th 2010, 06:44 PM
I think Paul is saying something different. Paul says that the Ephesians were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, but he does NOT say "now you are near the commonwealth of Israel." He says that both the Jews and the Gentiles are united in a "new man", which is not Israel but Christ.

By "commonwealth of Israel", Paul means the benefits of the citizens of Israel (cf. Acts 22:28). He then goes on to say that Gentiles, apart from circumcision and Torah-observance, but rather by faith through grace, have become fellow citizens. You can't be a citizen and at the same time not partake of the benefits of a citizen, can you? I think not.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 15th 2010, 06:46 PM
Paul doesn't argue that God provided a new way to enter Israel; he argued that a Gentile can find salvation apart from the covenant.

Umm... no. Perhaps you ought to clarify and give evidence of this before I comment further.

BroRog
Mar 15th 2010, 06:56 PM
By "commonwealth of Israel", Paul means the benefits of the citizens of Israel (cf. Acts 22:28). He then goes on to say that Gentiles, apart from circumcision and Torah-observance, but rather by faith through grace, have become fellow citizens. You can't be a citizen and at the same time not partake of the benefits of a citizen, can you? I think not.Paul doesn't say that the Ephesians became citizens of Israel. He says that they became fellow citizens with the saints in God's household. Big difference. :)

Nihil Obstat
Mar 15th 2010, 07:01 PM
Paul doesn't say that the Ephesians became citizens of Israel. He says that they became fellow citizens with the saints in God's household. Big difference. :)

And who are the saints according to the OT usage? Were they a different group of people than the Jews? And how was "God's household" defined?

John146
Mar 15th 2010, 07:08 PM
SALVATION OF ISRAEL
Throughout the Old Testament God promised that one day salvation would come to Israel (Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:24-28, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5; Joel 3:16-21; Zech. 10:6-12, 12:10). Though they had rebelled and sinned against God, He would one day have compassion on them, and bring them to salvation. Paul knew his Bible, and this is what he is speaking of in Romans 11. Is there something more that God needs to do than send His Son to die for their sins? You referenced Jeremiah 31:31-34. That is a prophecy regarding the new covenant (Heb 8:6-13). Do you know what put the new covenant in effect? The blood of Christ (Matt 26:28). So, why see OT passages like that as only having their fulfillment in the future?

Did God not already have compassion on the people of Israel and bring salvation to them? Of course He has, as it says here:

Acts 3
25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Again, is there something more that God needs to do that He has not already done to bring them to salvation? No, there is not.

John146
Mar 15th 2010, 07:13 PM
Paul doesn't say that the Ephesians became citizens of Israel. He says that they became fellow citizens with the saints in God's household. Big difference. :)The household of God is another name for the Israel of God. We know that Ephesians 2:12 is a reference to the Israel of God rather than the nation of Israel because Christ's blood did not bring the Gentiles near to the nation of Israel but did bring them near to the Israel of God.

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

So, the Gentiles were at one time "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" but that is no longer the case because of the blood of Christ. So, instead of "being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise" they "are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Eph 2:19). Fellowcitizens of the Israel of God.

BroRog
Mar 15th 2010, 07:13 PM
Umm... no. Perhaps you ought to clarify and give evidence of this before I comment further.In the following passage from Romans 3, Paul asserts that God is granting justification apart from the Law, in which he means the covenant.



But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Romans 3:21-24
In Romans 4, Paul argues that God is granting his justification based on faith, using an example from Abraham's life. He says that because God granted Abraham justification by faith, Abraham became the father of the uncircumcised who have faith, and those who are circumcised but also believe God. Then he argues that had God made the Law the basis for justification, his promise to Abraham would be nullified.



For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. Romans 4:14-15
Here again, Paul argues that God is granting salvation outside of any kind of covenant, for if God required that the Jews agree to a covenant in order to gain salvation, none of them could be saved because the covenant only brought about wrath for them.

John146
Mar 15th 2010, 07:15 PM
I think Paul is saying something different. Paul says that the Ephesians were aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel, but he does NOT say "now you are near the commonwealth of Israel."He clearly implies as such because he says along with having formerly been "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" they were also formerly "without Christ", "strangers from the covenants of promise" and "without God in the world". Because of the blood of Christ they are no longer ""without Christ", "strangers from the covenants of promise" and "without God in the world" so it only follows that they are also no longer "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel". No longer aliens from the Israel of God, but now fellowcitizens.

BroRog
Mar 15th 2010, 07:29 PM
The household of God is another name for the Israel of God.So you say. I don't see Paul saying this though.


So, the Gentiles were at one time "without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world" but tha is no longer the case because of the blood of Christ.Again, Paul doesn't say this. He doesn't say, "but that is no longer the case" as if everything he listed as being not a part of the Gentile experience is now part of it. Rather, he says



For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

When he says "both groups" he refers to "the Ephesians" and "the commonwealth of Israel". He doesn't say that the Ephesians entered into the commonwealth of Israel. He says that Christ united the Ephesians with the Commonwealth of Israel to form a new polity in Christ. He argues that because the commonwealth of Israel decreed that no Gentile should go beyond the dividing wall, the Ephesians were denied access to the temple, and ultimately resulted in a kind of animosity between that commonwealth and Ephesus. But as soon as Christ reconciled both groups to God through the cross, the two groups were reconciled to each other also.

Sirus
Mar 15th 2010, 07:30 PM
Is there something more that God needs to do than send His Son to die for their sins?Yes. Restore the kingdom.

BroRog
Mar 15th 2010, 08:01 PM
He clearly implies as such because he says along with having formerly been "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" they were also formerly "without Christ", "strangers from the covenants of promise" and "without God in the world". Because of the blood of Christ they are no longer ""without Christ", "strangers from the covenants of promise" and "without God in the world" so it only follows that they are also no longer "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel". No longer aliens from the Israel of God, but now fellow citizens.You are right to say that Paul isn't bringing the Gentiles near to physical Israel, but when he uses the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" he refers to natural, physical Israel. If he meant, "Spiritual Israel" in verse 12, the rest of his argument wouldn't make sense. The law of commandments in ordinances and the dividing wall only make sense in the context of the natural physical Israel. If there was such a thing as spiritual Israel, neither of these things would have any sort of relevance or significance. In the sense of spirituality and access to God, the Ephesians were not "far away" in that sense.



The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; Acts 17:24-27
Here Paul argues that God doesn't need a temple, and he isn't far from any of us. From the standpoint of our gaining access to God, we are not far from God and we gain access to him through the Spirit due to what Christ did on the cross. The Ephesians weren't "far away" in a spiritual sense, they were "far away" in a physical/social/educational sense. When Paul says that the Ephesians were far away, he isn't saying that they were far away from spiritual Israel and so they needed to be brought near to spiritual Israel. He means that the Ephesians were a different country with a different ethnic history, a different knowledge base, and a different corpus. They were living without hope because they were culturally unaware of the true God. They lacked information about the promises, the covenants, and the coming Messiah for the simple reason that they lived in Ephesus rather than Israel. The fact that the Ephesians were far away, not educated by Jewish teachers, not living in the same region, not attending the Synagogue, not reading the Jewish scriptures, etc. was precisely the reason why the Ephesians were living without hope in the world.

That's his point. You Ephesians didn't know about the Messiah or anything else about our hope because you weren't living here in the commonwealth of Israel with us, but were located far away in a land who had no knowledge of the Jewish scriptures or trained in what God revealed about himself.

John146
Mar 15th 2010, 08:11 PM
You are right to say that Paul isn't bringing the Gentiles near to physical Israel, but when he uses the phrase "commonwealth of Israel" he refers to natural, physical Israel. If he meant, "Spiritual Israel" in verse 12, the rest of his argument wouldn't make sense. The law of commandments in ordinances and the dividing wall only make sense in the context of the natural physical Israel. If there was such a thing as spiritual Israel, neither of these things would have any sort of relevance or significance. In the sense of spirituality and access to God, the Ephesians were not "far away" in that sense. If that was the case then why does it say they were "without God in the world"? It seems to me that if they were "without God in the world" then they were indeed far away from God spiritually. And we know they were. Most Gentiles followed after false gods and idols before Christ came.

John146
Mar 15th 2010, 08:13 PM
Yes. Restore the kingdom.Are you saying that you think Jesus did not accomplish all He was sent to do the first time? Which kingdom are you talking about? He brought the kingdom of God to them, so what more did He need to do?

Sirus
Mar 15th 2010, 08:43 PM
Are you saying that you think Jesus did not accomplish all He was sent to do the first time?yes. Read Revelation lately?


Which kingdom are you talking about?The Kingdom. The kingdom of God is only half -the spiritual- of The Kingdom.


He brought the kingdom of God to them, so what more did He need to do?Establish the kingdom of heaven (the kings domain of the universe -which He offered them and only them first) -Heaven- new heaven and earth -the physical where God dwells with man on earth forever.

BroRog
Mar 15th 2010, 10:19 PM
If that was the case then why does it say they were "without God in the world"? It seems to me that if they were "without God in the world" then they were indeed far away from God spiritually. And we know they were. Most Gentiles followed after false gods and idols before Christ came.Missionaries say this all the time. Since there are natives out there in the world without God, we need to send missionaries out to tell them about Jesus.

Nihil Obstat
Mar 15th 2010, 10:39 PM
In the following passage from Romans 3, Paul asserts that God is granting justification apart from the Law, in which he means the covenant.



But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; Romans 3:21-24
In Romans 4, Paul argues that God is granting his justification based on faith, using an example from Abraham's life. He says that because God granted Abraham justification by faith, Abraham became the father of the uncircumcised who have faith, and those who are circumcised but also believe God. Then he argues that had God made the Law the basis for justification, his promise to Abraham would be nullified.



For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. Romans 4:14-15
Here again, Paul argues that God is granting salvation outside of any kind of covenant, for if God required that the Jews agree to a covenant in order to gain salvation, none of them could be saved because the covenant only brought about wrath for them.

"Any kind of covenant"??? No, only the first covenant, which was the Law. This covenant has been subsumed by the coming of the new covenant. It'd be helpful in our discussion if you commented on one of my previous posts about that.

BroRog
Mar 16th 2010, 01:36 AM
"Any kind of covenant"??? No, only the first covenant, which was the Law. This covenant has been subsumed by the coming of the new covenant. It'd be helpful in our discussion if you commented on one of my previous posts about that.I'm forbidden to do that. Sorry. :)

Nihil Obstat
Mar 16th 2010, 01:46 AM
I'm forbidden to do that. Sorry. :)

Then, unless you're able to comment via PM, or willing to by email, I don't know how we can possibly move forward in this discussion.

losthorizon
Mar 16th 2010, 02:04 AM
The highlighted is your words not mine, so I can't defend what I didn't say. Go back and reread my comments.


But the highlighted words "Levitical priests" are in the passage under discussion are they not? Your Dispensational dogma requires Ezekiel 40-48 to be yet future and the passage I presented (Ezekiel 43:18-21) clearly states God will require “Levitical priests” to take the "blood of bulls" for a “sin offering”. What part of *bull-blood-sin offering-Levitical priests* to you not understand?

Let me ask you one more time to keep the record straight – in you version of dispensationalism will God once again (at some time yet future) require the blood of slain animals for sin offerings as presented in Ezekiel 43?
"Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD… you shall give to the Levitical priests… a bull from the herd for a sin offering...You shall also take the bull of the sin offering, and it shall be burned in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area…. ~ (Eze 43:18-21 ESV)Why would God once again require bloody animal sacrifices after the perfect one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross? This would be an affront to the finished work of Christ on our behalf. Why would God resurrect the Levitical priesthood in light of our great High Priest, Jesus Christ? Remember - Jesus cannot be a priest under the Levitical system - wrong tribe.


Stop and smell the coffee when you read... for I never stated that there isn't a spiritual kingdom today, again this is your inference in stating this back to me.
The coffee smells fishy - if the kingdom of Christ is on earth today (and it is) why do you insist Christ is coming to establish His kingdom? It is already here "in our midst". You may be confused.
"...surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.” ~ Jesus Christ (Matt 12:28)

What I am stating to folks who don't see that God still cares for the nation Israel is that they are missing scripture that states the contrary.

Straw-man again my friend – no one is saying God does not care for the physical Jew or the nation of Israel – He does. This is simply your smoke-screen. Yes?

BroRog
Mar 16th 2010, 02:10 AM
Then, unless you're able to comment via PM, or willing to by email, I don't know how we can possibly move forward in this discussion.Well, I think you have said some interesting things about how one covenant is subsumed under another. To move the conversation forward, I could ask you a couple of questions related to the New Covenant, but I'm not allowed to answer my own questions. :)

Let me get the passage before us.



Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 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."

1. In this context, what does the term "house" denote?
2. If the New Covenant is universal, why does God talk about the "fathers"?
3. Why does God talk as if the Old Covenant has already been broken?
4. To what does the metaphor "husband" refer?
5. If Paul says we are saved apart from the Law, what does it matter if the Law is on the heart?
6. What Law is written on the heart? Mosaic Law?
7. God talks about the elimination of evangelism during the New Covenant. Has the need for evangelism been eliminated?

Nihil Obstat
Mar 16th 2010, 04:19 AM
Well, I think you have said some interesting things about how one covenant is subsumed under another. To move the conversation forward, I could ask you a couple of questions related to the New Covenant, but I'm not allowed to answer my own questions. :)

Let me get the passage before us.



Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 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."

1. In this context, what does the term "house" denote?
2. If the New Covenant is universal, why does God talk about the "fathers"?
3. Why does God talk as if the Old Covenant has already been broken?
4. To what does the metaphor "husband" refer?
5. If Paul says we are saved apart from the Law, what does it matter if the Law is on the heart?
6. What Law is written on the heart? Mosaic Law?
7. God talks about the elimination of evangelism during the New Covenant. Has the need for evangelism been eliminated?

Not sure your point on a lot of these (and if I understood, I might answer differently), but here it is briefly anyway:

1. "House" would denote "the whole".
2. Their fathers died in the wilderness. See 1 Cor. 10, where Paul says this was written for our sake.
3. Because they did break it. However, God remained faithful (2 Tim. 2:11-13).
4. I suppose "taking by the hand", "covenant", and "husband" all sound like marriage language. Hence, Jer. 3:8, 14.
5. The Law cannot justify or sanctify anyone, which David knew, but he still sang about it! The Law is spiritual and holy.
6. The new covenant; the new law (Heb. 7:12).
7. No, God does not say any such thing here. See 1 John 2:27, or John 14-16 on the Spirit. "Knowing" might also be more marriage language.

For what it's worth (though I think it would be far more beneficial to speak together on this matter off-line).

Nihil Obstat
Mar 16th 2010, 04:26 AM
Well, I think you have said some interesting things about how one covenant is subsumed under another.

At least comment on my evidence that Gentiles had always been able to become Jews by observing the Torah. Surely you're allowed to speak on this particular issue?

anthony57
Mar 16th 2010, 04:59 AM
Hi everyone,

What are your thoughts on the modern day Israel?

I'm from the UK and most Christians here no longer see the land as important. However I believe the promises made to Abraham (I will bless you, make you a great nation etc) still stand today.

So is Israel 'just another country'? Or does God still have dealings there. And most importantly- if he does---what exactly are those 'dealings'?

I'd love to know your thoughts...

The Nation of Israel has no more Covenant relationship with God, it was done away with, but, God still had a election of grace within that Nation which He would bring to Faith in Christ..

Redeemed by Grace
Mar 16th 2010, 11:43 AM
But the highlighted words "Levitical priests" are in the passage under discussion are they not? Your Dispensational dogma requires Ezekiel 40-48 to be yet future and the passage I presented (Ezekiel 43:18-21) clearly states God will require “Levitical priests” to take the "blood of bulls" for a “sin offering”. What part of *bull-blood-sin offering-Levitical priests* to you not understand?

Let me ask you one more time to keep the record straight – in you version of dispensationalism will God once again (at some time yet future) require the blood of slain animals for sin offerings as presented in Ezekiel 43?
"Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD… you shall give to the Levitical priests… a bull from the herd for a sin offering...You shall also take the bull of the sin offering, and it shall be burned in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area…. ~ (Eze 43:18-21 ESV)Why would God once again require bloody animal sacrifices after the perfect one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross? This would be an affront to the finished work of Christ on our behalf. Why would God resurrect the Levitical priesthood in light of our great High Priest, Jesus Christ? Remember - Jesus cannot be a priest under the Levitical system - wrong tribe.


The coffee smells fishy - if the kingdom of Christ is on earth today (and it is) why do you insist Christ is coming to establish His kingdom? It is already here "in our midst". You may be confused.
"...surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.” ~ Jesus Christ (Matt 12:28)


Straw-man again my friend – no one is saying God does not care for the physical Jew or the nation of Israel – He does. This is simply your smoke-screen. Yes?

I will gladly address your questions after you address the ones I have asked of you here and a few threads back...



Dispensation: a general state or ordering of things

Nope... I will repeat what I stated that all folks are a dispensationalist to one degree or another, for even you are claiming a time of the church replacing Israel.




The highlighted is your words not mine, so I can't defend what I didn't say. Go back and reread my comments. And from those comments you can't possibly say that this already transpired. So when was this temple built?



Again, you are not understanding. Your comments about non-biblical is a smoke screen to say you see it another way, so just say so. Defend that it already happened then, show scripture when and where this happened... if you can.





Stop and smell the coffee when you read... for I never stated that there isn't a spiritual kingdom today, again this is your inference in stating this back to me. My comment's have been about the value of future Israel, that as a nation God will save them. You should know my position by now over the years, so to say that is contrary to the many years of my contribution here.

What I am stating to folks who don't see that God still cares for the nation Israel is that they are missing scripture that states the contrary. And if you are among them, then I state that directly to you. This is not for debate, this is to extend the love of Christ to all peoples, for today is the day of salvation. But this day will not always be as 'easy', for the judgment of God is approaching.

But as He comes in the clouds, He will do what He says he will do, and if you disagree, then that's your prerogative

Nihil Obstat
Mar 16th 2010, 02:59 PM
So when was this temple built?

I would maintain that this temple, as Ezekiel saw it, will never be built. And not because, as is often the reason presented, they did not meet the stipulation given in 43:10-11, which says, "Son of man, describe the temple to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and let them measure the pattern. And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple and its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, its entire design and all its ordinances, all its forms and all its laws. Write it down in their sight, so that they may keep its whole design and all its ordinances, and perform them." I do not agree that the Jews did not seek repentance from God for their iniquities, and I would evidence Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah to show this. Rather, I would maintain that this temple will never be rebuilt because it was seen according to the lens where Torah was in effect. However, by the ratification of the new covenant, which has subsumed the covenant made at Sinai, this temple can now never be. The new covenant parallel to Ezekiel's vision has exceeded it in every way, and can be found in Rev. 21-22. The new Jerusalem is without a temple, because heaven will be on earth (cf. Jer. 3:14-17), but is in fact said to have the dimensions of, albeit at a much larger scale, the Holy of Holies.

Blessings!

BroRog
Mar 16th 2010, 03:39 PM
At least comment on my evidence that Gentiles had always been able to become Jews by observing the Torah. Surely you're allowed to speak on this particular issue?I agree with you central point about Gentiles becoming Jews. Cornelius, however, became a clear example that God was saving Gentiles outside of becoming a Jew. This seems to contradict your position that the church is Israel.

John146
Mar 16th 2010, 03:56 PM
yes. Read Revelation lately?What kind of answer is this? What I was asking is whether or not Jesus accomplished all He was sent to do when He was sent to this earth around 2,000 years ago. Are you saying that there is something He failed to do that He was sent to do at that time?

John146
Mar 16th 2010, 04:02 PM
Missionaries say this all the time. Since there are natives out there in the world without God, we need to send missionaries out to tell them about Jesus.Okay, this doesn't have anything to do with the point I was making. The point I'm trying to make is this: The Gentiles, or more specifically the Ephesians (since we're talking about Ephesians 2) were "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" and "strangers from the covenants of promise", but were brought near by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13) and became fellowcitizens of the household of God (Eph 2:19) with Jewish believers. So, what I believe that means is that they are no longer strangers from the covenants of promise made to the Jews, but are now included in the covenants of promise. In the same vein they are no longer aliens from the Israel of God, but are now included in the Israel of God.