5 Common Mistakes When Studying End Time Prophecy -brayley

Some good, solid, thinking here Greg. Thanks for posting it.

Greg,

Was this message done by Eli?

Murray

Let me draw an example for clarity using a straightforward Scripture that has been repeatedly abused in this way. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 reads: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." Now from this very Scripture amazing speculation has been deduced. It is said:

1) this is not the coming of the Lord Jesus
2) this is a secret snatching away of the Church
3) this will not be seen, heard or felt by anyone but the Christians
4) this preludes "the Great Tribulation"
5) there will be people left behind who can still be saved
and so forth...

This, I think, is the most blatant example of all. I have pointed it out over the years and when I have the person always points to someone smarter than me as their source. A person can be a triple doctorate and be 'wrong'. The passage is too strait forward to tamper with.

Many Christians hold to a false idea that the Church has replaced the nation of Israel as God's chosen people, or that the Church is made up of all those that call themselves 'Christians', a largely Gentile connotation. Let me remind us of some basic Biblical facts:

First of all, the word "Church" comes from the Greek word "ecclesia" which means "the called out ones". Isn't that wonderful? "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 2:5) Our Father in heaven is preparing a Bride for His Son Jesus, made up of those who are called out of the world according to the foreknowledge and wisdom of God. The Church did not begin some time in A.D., but truly began when men began to call upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart. It is not a New Testament institution, but has been in motion since the foundation of the world, but only now manifested in these last days. Hebrews chapter 11, known as the Hall of Faith, records those great individuals who laid hold of God through faith and won the good report. Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses... all part of the company of saints.

This is somewhat of a new thought to me. I do see in the OT where gentiles were "saved." Rahab being one example. But does this line of thinking take away from Isreal being a distict people of God?

This is somewhat of a new thought to me. I do see in the OT where gentiles were "saved." Rahab being one example. But does this line of thinking take away from Isreal being a distict people of God?

The Church did not begin some time in A.D., but truly began when men began to call upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart. It is not a New Testament institution, but has been in motion since the foundation of the world, but only now manifested in these last days.

This is somewhat of a new thought to me. I do see in the OT where gentiles were "saved." Rahab being one example. But does this line of thinking take away from Isreal being a distict people of God?

Josh, that's a good question. Let me elaborate:

No, it doesn't take away from the distinction of Israel. We need to remember a very important Scripture:

[i]"For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold 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. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
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."[/i] - Romans 11:16-25

I say, this entire chapter is one of the most overlooked chapter in the whole Bible which leads to erroneous thinking about the Church and the Jews. Let us never ever forget we are GRAFTED in to the tree, the Jewish tree, Abraham being the root. There is no Church of Israel and Church of Gentiles. All are one in Christ (Galatians 3:28). Paul warns us not to boast against the vine or be conceited. Many people don't like the fact that we are grafted into the Jewish tree and attempt to disconnect the two. Remember, we being Gentiles were not originally called by God, we did not seek God; He already had a people called by His name. It is by the mercy of God we are grafted INTO that people! God has not chosen a new people, He has included the Gentiles into His already chosen people.

So what is the Church? The Church is all those called out by God. All those of the household of faith, from the beginning of the world to the end. Jesus is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" and by faith did men look to Him from the beginning until now. [i]"The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart."[/i] (Romans 10:8) God gave a promise to Adam for all mankind that a Saviour would come and save us from our sins. This is the faith men hold to.

The apostles were Jewish, and they were the pillars of the Church! Jesus was Jewish, our Bible is Jewish, everything about the Church is Jewish because we have been grafted into to the Jewish tree! To disconnect Gentiles and Jews is absolutely wrong.

Now not all Jews believe, are they of the tree? No. But not all Jews are unbelievers either, are they of the tree? Yes. A believing Jew is a true Jew, of the seed of Abraham and of the word of faith. An unbelieving Jew is of the seed of Abraham but not of the word of faith. A Gentile is not of the seed of Abraham but of the word of faith. It is really not complicated. A Jewish believer overlaps both seed and faith. He is both Jew by nature and by the Spirit. It is not separate.

Therefore heed the words of Paul: [i]"Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee."[/i] God has not utterly forsaken His people. For if the casting away of them has been the riches of the world and the receiving of the Gentiles, how much for their reconciliation!

[i]"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."[/i] (Romans 11:29-36)

I say, this entire chapter is one of the most overlooked chapter in the whole Bible which leads to erroneous thinking about the Church and the Jews. Let us never ever forget we are GRAFTED in to the tree, the Jewish tree, Abraham being the root.

Hi Eli,

I enjoyed the article very much. I wonder if you have considered that Jesus Christ is actually the 'Root'? That He is [u]T[/u]he [u]S[/u]eed to which the promises were actually made? (Gal 3:16)

God Bless,

Robert

I say, this entire chapter is one of the most overlooked chapter in the whole Bible which leads to erroneous thinking about the Church and the Jews. Let us never ever forget we are GRAFTED in to the tree, the Jewish tree, Abraham being the root.

One of the problems we have here is that we are using different terms as though they are synonyms; this always causes confusion. We need some working definitions of Hebrew
Israel
Jew
The Circumcision We also need to keep in mind that what the United Nations calls "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan]Israel[/url]" is a modern sovereign state and may or may not have any relationship to the Biblical use of the word 'Israel'.

The word Jew derives from Judah. The term is used in the scriptures from the time of the Babylonian captivity: 2Kings 16:6; 18:26,28; 25:25; 2Chr 32:18; Ezra 4:12,23; 5:1,5; 6:7-8,14; Neh 1:2; 2:16; 4:1-2,12; 5:1,8,17; 6:6; 13:23-24; Esth 2:5; 3:4,6,10,13; 4:3,7,13-14,16; 5:13; 6:10,13; 8:1,3,5,7-9,11,13,16-9:3; 9:5-6,10,12-13,15-16,18-20,22-25,27-31; 10:3; Is 36:11,13; Jer 32:12; 34:9; 38:19; 40:11-12,15; 41:3; 44:1; 52:28,30; Dan 3:8,12; Zech 8:23.

The earliest of these references is 2 Kings 16:6 which refers to the alliance of Syria and Israel (the Northern Kingdom) which drove 'the Jews from Elath'.king of Syria. The position of this scripture is significant as 2 Kings 17 is the account of the end of 'Israel'. “In the ninth year of Hoshea the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and placed them in Halah and in Habor by the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes.”
(2Kings 17:6 KJVS) Samaria, (the city) was taken and the northern tribes of 'Israel' were deported to Assyria; this is key date BC 722. From this point the northern tribes pass out of biblical history and into legend.

In the Old Testament then, the term Jew does not mean what it means in the New Testament. In the OT it is not a religious term or a description on the descendants of Abraham but is a term describing the inhabitants of the nation state of Judah. It is not, and this is important, at this time a synonym for Israel. In fact, it is a term used to distinguish the remnants of Judah [u]from[/u] the banished nation of 'Israel'. You can see why this can get confusing. ;-) In the book of Jeremiah the word 'Israel' has to be read carefully with regard to the context to discover who Jeremiah is speaking about. Most times when he says 'Israel' he means 'Israel' as distinct from Judah. (Israel had already gone into captivity 120 years earlier. However when he describes God as 'the God of Israel' he is thinking of the the whole nation as it had been under Moses, Joshua, David and Solomon. We might call it 'ideal Israel'.

120 years after God had banished the northern Kingdom of Israel the southern Kingdom of Judah also went into captivity; Israel to Assyria and Judah to Babylonia. Both the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom had been emptied of its 'rightful tenants' (God's covenant people). Some 70 years later a tiny remnant returned from Babylon to Judeae. I estimate that at the time of David's ill-fated census the total population of the united nation was upwards of 6 million. The numbers that returned during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah were less that 50,000. (Can someone do the math for me? What percentage returned? It is less than 1%) To give some sense of what this means consider an American megachurch of 5000 people. Imagine them being taken into captivity and 40 people returning 70 years later, and perhaps less than 10 were the original deportees.

In effect this was a brand new beginning. This tiny remnant is really the remnant of a remnant.; Judah was what remained when Israel was taken captive. That remnant, Judah, went into Babylonian captivity and from that 'remnant' a tiny 'remnant' returned to re-seed the land. The astonishing thing to note is that this remnant now become the sole inheritors of the promises which God made at Sinai. There is a significant phrase in Ezra which describes this tiny remnant of Judah as 'all Israel'. The have become the carriers of the promise and destiny of 'Israel'. “The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore, Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women. Their horses were seven hundred thirty and six; their mules, two hundred forty and five; Their camels, four hundred thirty and five; their asses, six thousand seven hundred and twenty. And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the Lord which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place: They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments. So the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and [u]all Israel in their cities[/u].”
(Ezra 2:64-70 KJVS)This tiny remnant of 'Judah' had become 'Israel'.

I am not sure that the Old Testament ever refers to the 'land' as 'Israel'. Israel is the people and the 'land of Israel' is the land which is possessed by Israel. It is not a land called 'Israel' but the earthly possession of the people called Israel. I am open to correction on this, but even if examples could be found to show otherwise I am convinced that the people rather than the land is the carrier of the name 'Israel'. It was not until [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan]November 29th, 1947[/url] that we have a piece of real estate called 'Israel'.

Perhaps I'll wait a little for any feedback before pursuing the other definitions. We still need to see how this people got its name and what it signifies.

Hi Ron,

Perhaps I'll wait a little for any feedback before pursuing the other definitions.

I have struggled to understand how Abraham could actually be the 'Root', though I understand the issue of Abrahamic faith. Maybe I am mixing metaphors here when I point to Galatians 3:16? When I think of being 'grafted in' I am thinking of being grafted into Jesus Christ, the True Vine.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15:5)

The Jews who were heirs to the righteousness of God by faith would have been the 'natural' branches. This would be those 'circumcised' referred to in Romans 3:

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

It seems to me that the object of our faith has to be Jesus Christ. We are all 'in' by faith (either naturally or grafted) and that faith is the faith of Abraham. But it seems to be a hard saying that one could be grafted into 'Abrahamic Faith'. It seems easier for me to apprehend if I think that folk are in Jesus Christ through Abrahamic Faith.

Have I misunderstood this?

God Bless,

-Robert

As I understand it, the root is Abrahamic Faith IN Christ.

Hi Eli,

Thanks for the clarification. I am anxious to hear Ron's reply also. He has an excellent study called "Abraham My Friend" that is wonderful. I printed the whole thing out and put it in a notebook. The problem with my point is that it infers that folk before the time of Christ could believe in Christ. I think the solution to this is that their faith was actually in God. They only had a limited revelation, but they exercised faith because of that revelation. I suppose we could say that they had faith in the promised 'Seed', but that would be limited also. Somehow it has to play out, I just am not sure how.

I'll be out for about 10 days so I will likely not be back to reply. I'll try to look at this again then.

God Bless,

-Robert

Brother Robert,

I agree. No one knew who the Messiah was before Jesus came, not even John the Baptist knew until he saw the Spirit light upon his cousin like a dove after coming up out of the water. But I am certain, though they did not know who the Son of Man would be, they knew what He was going to do. As you have pointed out, God gave man the promise of the Seed, and men rightly understood that to be a promise of a coming Deliverer. Most interesting is that in Genesis 4, Abel correctly sacrifices a lamb, an offering of blood, and God accepted it. I believe this reveals that man understood that Messiah would come and shed His blood for their sins. Noah also offered sacrifices, which leads me to think that the institution of sacrifice was introduced by God to Adam at the promise of the Seed, who passed it on to his sons, who passed it on through the generations unto Noah. Another example of this is Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac, where he reckoned that God could give him back the dead. Powerful! Time passed and God revealed more about His Son though the prophets, etc, and today we know exactly who He is: Jesus the Christ.

Therefore, I believe that faith in Christ, though not as defined as we have it today, was the same faith of these saints of old. They looked to Him who was to come, we look to Him who has already come; and we all look toward His great and final coming when He shall quicken our mortal bodies, both Old Testament and New Testament believers, with a shout: "Come forth!" (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

[i]"Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?"[/i] (John 11:23-26)

Just some initial thoughts. God bless you too, brother!
-Eli

Hi Robert

It seems to me that the object of our faith has to be Jesus Christ. We are all 'in' by faith (either naturally or grafted) and that faith is the faith of Abraham. But it seems to be a hard saying that one could be grafted into 'Abrahamic Faith'. It seems easier for me to apprehend if I think that folk are in Jesus Christ through Abrahamic Faith.

We have a whole list of pre-Abrahamic saints in Hebrews 11 who were 'justified by faith'. I don't know that either they or Abraham were consciously focused on the person of Christ. The basic statement of Abraham-type-faith seems to be “And he believed in Jehovah. And he reckoned it to him for righteousness.”
(Gen 15:6 ASV)Abraham had received several revelations relating to the character of the God upon whom he now leans. I think faith must be in a person rather than a thing but I don't know that those pre-Abraham believers had a very fully revelation. However, it appears it was enough for them to believe God too.

I think it may be mixing two different images to link the Galatians 'Seed' with the Roman's olive tree. I know a fundamental image of the New Testament is being 'rooted in Christ' but I don't think that is in view in Romans 11.

The reason I speak of Abrahamic faith is because is that the Gentile believers are not grafted into the branches but into the root of the olive tree. The nature of the tree is found in its root. If the same nature is missing in the branches they are broken off. And if the same nature is found in believing Gentiles they are grafted in. But they are grafted into the Olive Tree not into the olive branches. The figure continues in its warning that if the Gentile looses his 'believing nature' he will also be broken off. Sobering stuff.

I think the words of John Baptist are significant here. “Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
(Luke 3:7-9 KJVS) I did a little tree-felling in my scouting days and laying the axe to the tree is the way you take aim. This seems to be John saying 'God is taking aim and is about to sever you from the root because you don't have the right kind of fruit on your branches.'

To tell this people that they gained nothing by having Abraham as their father is staggering! Their whole history and destiny rode on the fact as far as most of them believed. But here John cuts through it all. It seems to me that Paul is doing the same in Romans 11.

In Romans 11 those grafted-in Gentiles“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 11:17 KJVS) partake of the root not the branches. The root is not the Jewish nation but "that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" (Rom 4:12) This is pre-everything faith; pre-covenant, pre-circumcision. According to...“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 4:12 KJVS)... the saints of the circumcision era had to have BOTH circumcision AND Abrahamic-faith. Abrahamic-faith is not rule-keeping but total dependence upon another.

Hi Ron & Eli,

I'll be out for about 10 days so I will likely not be back to reply. I'll try to look at this again then.

Well, here I am at an internet Cafe' in Moab, UT! No kidding! $5 for 30 minutes, so this will be a little short. ;-)

He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, [u]if we believe [i]on him[/i] that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;[/u] Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

It is interesting to note here the emphasis on 'Him' being the object of Abraham's faith. His is certainly Jehovah (or YHWH). This is why I think Ron's emphasis on 'revelation' is so important. Folk can only respond to what God has revealed.

The root is not the Jewish nation but "that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised" (Rom 4:12) This is pre-everything faith; pre-covenant, pre-circumcision.

I think I had been better off using a different title to the "Jewish Root's of the Christian Faith" thread a few years ago. It gave the wrong impression. I could have called it, "Abrahamic Roots", but I have trouble with that and am coming to a better understanding. The main text book I pull from is called, "Our Father Abraham." However, lets not kid ourselves here. When the Messianics say Abrahamic Roots (at least the ones I have known) they mean more than Abraham and some actually try to introduce Talmud and Mishna as legitimate works. So, defining our terms, as was suggested earlier (somewhere else?), is quite important.

Either way, the original post has been on my mind a bit. It is very hard for me to zoom out and think about Israel [i]not being[/i] a 'nation state' and the eschatological implications of that. I live within walking distance of Harry S. Truman's home and the concept of Israel as a nation is very deeply rooted in my (our local) thinking. It will take me some time to try to work through the issue.

Time is passing... maybe I'll ring again. I'm on a long business vacation and may or may not find another cafe such as this.

God Bless,

Robert

Quote Ron"

[i]I am not sure that the 'object of our faith' has to be Christ if we mean by 'object' a conscious focus.

We have a whole list of pre-Abrahamic saints in Hebrews 11 who were 'justified by faith'. I don't know that either they or Abraham were consciously focused on the person of Christ. The basic statement of Abraham-type-faith seems to be
“And he believed in Jehovah. And he reckoned it to him for righteousness.”[/i]

Hi Ron, I think you will agree that pre-Abrahamic saints' faith was not of the blind sort. They must have heard what God told them to do, and they obeyed. Levitical Jews are required to obey the laws also by faith.

In John 1:1

[b]"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the [i]Word was God[/i].[/b]"

Also bearing in mind Romans 10:17

[b]"So then [i]faith[/i] cometh by hearing, and hearing by the [i]word of God[/i][/b]."

For instance:

Abel : By faith to offer blood sacrifice
Noah : By faith to build the ark
Abraham: By faith to sacrifice Isaac
Jews: By faith to obey Levitical Laws(ideally)
Gentiles: By faith to believe/obey Christ

In my mind, throughout man's history, the object of one's faith has always been God's Word since It's part of the Trinity, first to hear and know what HE says, to believe what He says, and to do what HE says. Even though the Word had has come in various forms (audible voice,laws,prophets,written,Christ in flesh,Christ in Word).)

Why shouldn't the object of our faith be Christ for Christians, since Christ is the Living Word? Just as that same Word as the object of Abraham's
faith?

thanks, learning
In Christ,
mamaluk

I hope I was not giving the impression of negating the nation of Israel, that is the farthest thing from my mind. What I have attempted to do is define the Church, made up of all those of the household of faith. Israel, or perhaps better termed 'Jacob', are all those of the physical seed of Abraham to whom God made the original covenant. They are not utterly forsaken, God still has much to do with them yet. But we must understand this: [b]A Jewish believer is part of the Church as well as part of Jacob.[/b] He is of both parties at the same time: spiritually a member of the Body of Christ, and physically a Jew, descendant of Abraham.

Again, my original intention was to define the Church, not relinquish the nation of Israel.

Eli,

"A Jewish believer is part of the Church as well as part of Jacob. He is of both parties at the same time: spiritually a member "

I used to think that, I tend to think that he is part of Jacob alone, and probably he will remain and serve the King in the future Kingdom of Israel physically, should our Lord return soon. Spiritually, it will not be wrong to say that he's part Church, since the Lord Jesus is the centrality of both.

While the gentile Christian position is [b]united in [/b]the risen Christ with Him as the Head of the Body. I think what I'm saying is that, how can one be half and half, partly in the Lord and partly in the Jewish King, if indeed the Kingdom of Israel is to be restored in the future (which I believe),then he would become a part of the remnant, especially looking at this in the light of physical functionality.

On the other hand, one can say that we (gentile believers) are half and half too, spiritually speaking, since we've been grafted , am I confusing you?

interesting, thanks
mamaluk

(Whoops, posted twice)

Hi Mamaluk,

It really isn't complicated. Peter was Jewish... was he part of the Church? Of course he was. Paul also was Jewish... was he part of the Church? Yes, one of the great pillars! etc.

Were these men part of Jacob then? Yes, they were physically Jewish. Jacob is made up of those physical descendants of Abraham. But there is absolutely no need to say you must be in one group or the other. It's the same as a Spaniard believer being part of the Church: Is he Spanish? Yes. Is he of Christ? Yes. Fully both at the same time. He does not lose his Spanish-ness when he becomes a follower of Jesus!

Therefore when God speaks about Jacob in prophecy He speaks of all the Jews, both believing and unbelieving. When He speaks of His Church, He speaks of all the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile. They overlap slightly.

As said earlier, keep in mind that the Church spans the ages of time and that Gentiles are grafted in and not the other way around. Jews don't lose their heritage when they become Messianic.

Eli,

I understand, since you brought up the distinction of the two, I agree with "Jews don't lose their heritage when they become Messianic."

According to your statement, Peter (and the other 11) are still with Jacob. That's what I believe, the 12 apostles, who are to become part of the 24 rulers of the future Kingdom (Rev).

However, since Paul is not part of those 24 (12 apostles and elders of 12 tribes) , he is part of the Body. IN the Lord with the Church, as to with the Messiah in the future.

thanks

mamaluk

I hope I was not giving the impression of negating the nation of Israel, that is the farthest thing from my mind.

After your first post on this thread, I understand what you are talking about.

The Church did not begin some time in A.D., but truly began when men began to call upon the name of the Lord out of a pure heart. It is not a New Testament institution, but has been in motion since the foundation of the world, but only now manifested in these last days.

This statement is the one that raised the question. If you define the church specifically as the "called out ones" (which of course is what the word means) I understand your point. Generally when I think of the "Church" I think of Christians- believers in Christ, more specifically those that have been born again.

I think what happens many times is that we blur truths together that don’t always mix or don't see how they come together correctly. [EDIT: I'm not saying I disagree with your article. I just re-read this and it could have been interpreted that way.] An example is this: It's obvious that we are in a new covenant as opposed to the old. There are differences. I know some try to blur them together and it brings all types of confusion from saying that the OT saints had Christ dwelling in them to NT saints can not eating pork.

There were two definite and distinct covenants, absolutely, and the first was abolished when Christ died on the cross. But just because there was two different covenants doesn't mean there are two different types of believers. It's all by faith. This hasn't changed.

Eli, (let me first apologize for I still don't know how to quote properly ) :)

You said earlier:
"There were two definite and distinct covenants, absolutely, and the first was abolished when Christ died on the cross. But just because there was two different covenants doesn't mean there are two different types of believers. It's all by faith. This hasn't changed.

According to some other schools of theology, take Covenant Theology for instance, there were more than 2 covenants and more than 2 types of believers, even though surely faith governs and is required of all.

Then you said:

"When He speaks of His Church, He speaks of all the Body of Christ, both Jew and Gentile. They overlap slightly.

But according to:
Galatians 3:28
[b]There is [i]neither[/i] Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.[/b]

It is clear, that there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the Body, at the [i]present time[/i].
There shouldn't be any overlapping.

You said here:

"As said earlier, keep in mind that the Church spans the ages of time and that Gentiles are grafted in and not the other way around. Jews don't lose their heritage when they become Messianic."

Jewish heritage, as I believe, will be restored physically/earthly as the Kingdom of Israel in the future. The grafting into the Root (I see It as the Messiah, or I guess you can consider it Abrahamic, it will be true since the Jewish Messiah came from Abrahamic bloodline), is what unite us( the Messianic Church, with ''neither Jews or Gentiles'' ) in Christ.

I think what I'm saying is, you really can't make it sound as there are some distinctions here, but not there, that some matter but some don't. Eschatology students or theologians, in my mind, should never have to project themselves with authoritative certainty. Either group can only study lifelong, and often, will change positions as they go as I've witnessed all too many times in my years of study.

Furthermore, I still have trouble with this half and half notion that a Jewish believer is half in Jacob and half in the Church, since Paul had already told us, there is neither Jew nor Gentile at the present time.

The Spanish example of yours is not working for me really, because we are not talking about earthly but spiritual position.

mamaluk

Little late here and read some of this out of order... Went back to the beginning and must say, there is a tremendous education here that cuts across whole swaths of considerations, beyond even the subject matter. Most impressive, I hope it is widely read and applied.

Jews don't lose their heritage when they become Messianic."

ANCIENT
Between 323 B.C.E. and 70 C.E. (the year the Second Temple was destroyed), many individuals converted to Judaism. The vast majority of these proselytes made the decision to become Jewish on their own. Judaism's belief in one God was particularly appealing, as was the tenor of the Hebrew liturgy. Still other proselytes fell in love with Jewish partners and wished to be of the same faith.

We lack direct evidence of how Jews of the Second Temple era received their new co-religionists, but the high number of proselytes in this period suggests a welcoming attitude. The opposite was the case for the small number of Gentiles who were forcibly converted to Judaism (a measure that has traditionally been rejected in Judaism). The first example of forced conversion known to us was the High Priest John Hyrcanus's conversion of the Edomites in 125 B.C.E. During his reign, Hyrcanus conquered the Samaritans and the Edomites, and gave them the option of converting to Judaism or being exiled from Judea.

MODERN
from [url=http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/Jews_NonJews/NJ_Attitudes_TO/NJ_Proselytes.htm]here[/url]

At times, Jews have embraced large numbers of converts, but hostile relations with Gentile neighbors often led to suspicion of proselytes as well.
In the United States, there are about 185-200,000 individuals who have converted to Judaism, with approximately 3,600 people converting each year. "Introduction to Judaism" classes flourish around the United States in Reform and Conservative synagogues, and some congregations count large numbers of proselytes among their members.

If I understand correctly, many also converted to Judaism in the MiddleAges – in the area of the Black Sea. (If I find this info, I’ll add it)

In view of the fact that there have been no ancestral records since Christ, and also considering the reality of constant dispersions with people entering and exiting Judaism over the centuries, I don’t understand how we can assume that anyone’s heritage links them back to Jacob. If this was crucial in God’s higher purposes, surely he would have miraculously preserved records of lineage just as he did during OT dispersions.

Paul longed for the reconciliation of his fellow Jews, but he also placed little value on his PAST heritage, even referring to it as “all rubbish” He was zealous for an eternal kingdom. (FUTURE)

Is that not still the priority today? I fear that as this focus gradually diminishes in our modern churches, and we stray from the faith of Abraham (who had an eternal perspective Heb 11:10), we are putting the very foundation of the Gospel at risk.

One of the problems we have here is that we are using different terms as though they are synonyms; this always causes confusion. We need some working definitions of
Hebrew
Israel
Jew
The Circumcision

We also need to keep in mind that what the United Nations calls "Israel" is a modern sovereign state and may or may not have any relationship to the Biblical use of the word 'Israel'.

Diane

Hi again Mamaluk, thanks for the response. I'll do my best here to answer.

I can't believe that there are two different types of believers. This just isn't found in Scripture and doesn't make any sense. Hebrews 12:1 says we are encompassed with a great cloud of witnesses following an impressive list of Hebrew believers in God. The only difference is that they did not receive the promise, we did, because Christ, for them, had not yet come. But together our faith is made perfect (Hebrews 11:40)

The Scripture you quoted from Galatians 3:28 does not negate what I am talking about. If I can remember, I quoted this very Scripture earlier in the thread. Indeed, all in Christ Jesus are one. The Church is made up of all people, from every time and every place, which is what I have been defending all along. This verse fits well with what I am saying.

At the same time, brother, this verse does not negate the distinction between Jew and Gentile. It IS very much a physical difference. You cannot take this text alone and ignore other numerous passages which show this distinction.

Brother, I think you misunderstand me: I did not say they are half of Jacob and half of the Church... what I actually said was they are fully of Jacob and fully of the Church! See these Scriptures:

[i]"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."[/i] (Romans 11:1)

[b]Paul himself testifies that he is an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin![/b] A very physical reference; a people not cast away. He is a believer and does not negate his Jewishness. Reading on:

[i]"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, Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.[/i]

[i]"But 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. [b]Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.[/b]"[/i] (Romans 11:2-5)

Paul is talking about Messianic believers. Though Israel has fallen, not all of them rejected the Saviour. Thus you have those who are believers in Christ and Jews, a remnant of Israel. Fully a part of the Bride of Christ and fully Israelites.

The Spanish example works very well except that we are talking about Jews, who received great promises and were chosen of God, not Spaniards. But my point is this: their being a part of the Church is spiritual; and their being a part of Jacob is physical.

Thanks Eli.

It's a whole lot more clearer now.

You said," a remnant of Israel. Fully a part of the Bride of Christ and fully Israelites."

Isn't there the confusion where most think that the Church is the bride, shouldn't it be true that Israel is the future bride instead.

Rev:21:2
"I saw the Holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband."

Since the Church (Gentile Ekklesia) is already united in Christ as His body, wouldn't it be true to say, according to the above verse, that Israel is the bride, sort of an antitype of the Wife (Jewish Ekklsia) of Jehovah .

How can the Christian Church be the body and bride at the same time. e.g. The husband lives in his own body, while the wife is a separate entity.

Am I confusing you? :) Any suggestions here?

thanks, mamaluk

Sis D

You can always be counted on to bring the noise :-P ... You asked;
"What is a Jew?"

--- Hmmmm ... someone correct me if i'm wrong too ...

i've come to believe that from the time God called Abram to "move", and i guess more particularly when he and all the males of his house were circumcised as the outward sign of the covenant/promise, up until the time of the changing of Jacob's name those afore were known as Hebrews ... This name being derived from Eber who was a great-grandson of Shem and the father of Peleg and Joktan and an ancestor of Abraham ...

Please bro Ron don't shoot me for saying this :-D, but Jewish folk-lore has it that Eber refused to help with the building of the Tower of Babel, so his language was not confused when it fell and that he and his family alone retained the original human language. After this, their language was called Hebrew, named after Eber.

At any rate somehow Abram and his descendants wound up speaking Hebrew, and some men more learned than myself associate the name Eber as the root of the word "Hebrew", while others also associate the name with "region beyond or across", "opposite side", "passage", or simply "beyond" ... Which of course would certainly sum up what God required Abram to do both physically and spiritually and he and his became known as Hebrews ...

Then after Jacob's name change it seems that the entire lot of himself, his twelve sons, and all their offspring including Judah, became known as Israel ... And tho Judah became preeminent as the rulership tribe both in terms of earthly rulership starting with David and eventually birthing our heavenly ruler Jesus Christ, weren't they all still known as the Isrealites until the splitting of the kingdom into Israel and Judah (Judea)? ...

Then i thought that the reason why all Israelites after the complete scattering of the northern kingdom began to be called Jews was because (1) - For a long period they were the most pronounced tribe, tho not the only because were'nt Benjamin and Levi with them also? ... (2) - They had Jerusalem and the Temple and eventually their worship of Jehovah came to be known as Judaism and so any such adherents to the religion automatically to the gentile was a Jew ... This just made me also think that the turning point of the world from seeing the Hebrew (Abraham) as an Israelite (Jacob) happened in this period and that after their return from Babylonian captivity they ALL were solidly sealed as Jews period ... Does this make sense, if not will someone that knows for sure make it plain? ...

Then this by bro Ron got me to thinking; ---
"One of the problems we have here is that we are using different terms as though they are synonyms; this always causes confusion. We need some working definitions of
- Hebrew
- Israel
- Jew
- The Circumcision"

--- All the above terms are synonomous to me ... It's funny when i look at the now state of Israel, or talk to any of my many Jewish neighbors i don't even wonder as to who they are as to what tribe they might be from - i just see them as descendants of Shem, who by their error and/or God's divine design missed Christ when He came, and because of it "glory to God" i'm grafted in! ... It's also why i have a desire to witness to them - but i digress ...

Then this by bro Ron;---
"We also need to keep in mind that what the United Nations calls "Israel" is a modern sovereign state and may or may not have any relationship to the Biblical use of the word 'Israel'."

--- And this by you sis D;---
"In view of the fact that there have been no ancestral records since Christ, and also considering the reality of constant dispersions with people entering and exiting Judaism over the centuries, I don’t understand how we can assume that anyone’s heritage links them back to Jacob. If this was crucial in God’s higher purposes, surely he would have miraculously preserved records of lineage just as he did during OT dispersions."

--- i thought tho we humans may have trouble with deciphering who's a Hebrew/Isrealite/Jew or not it doesn't seem that God the Father has any trouble knowing who's who, even to the point of selecting them by tribes (if one believes as i a literal interpretation of the Revelation passage re: 144,000) ...

And i might also add that if Israel's re-establishment in 1948 has nothing to do with
Ezek.37 then i and a whole lot of other saints are sorely misguided and i pray our Lord will not allow us to continue down this path ... But if it does then God said;

[11] Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts.
[12] Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

We may not be able to decipher who's who, or not agree on what the state should be called, but God said the regathering is of the "whole house of Israel" into "the land of Israel" ... He knows, and i believe that's all that matters ...

Blessings in Jesus! ---

(if one believes as i a literal interpretation of the Revelation passage re: 144,000) ...

Isn't this a rather small number?

A question: If Abraham was to be the father of many nations, who are those nations?

Diane

i thought tho we humans may have trouble with deciphering who's a Hebrew/Isrealite/Jew or not it doesn't seem that God the Father has any trouble knowing who's who, even to the point of selecting them by tribes (if one believes as i a literal interpretation of the Revelation passage re: 144,000)

Amen.

Sis D you wrote;
"Of course, this number includes the Northern tribes who are never called Jews in Scripture. (Who are they?)"

--- i don't follow your question here ...

Apparently to me they are just as you said a part of the northern tribe, tho i think we humans may get caught up on who's who as i attempted to point out God doesn't see them as two seperate entities in that He refers to them ALL as Israel (out of the significance of His encounter with Jacob who was the continuance of the Abrahamic covenant toward the birthing of Jesus Christ by whom all nationalities if they believed in Him would be blessed thereby making Abraham the father of us all, many nations, by our faith ... Whew!) ...

i also attempted to put out it seems to me that Abraham's descendants (initially those under physical circimcision and under the law) were once called Hebrews, then after Jacob became known also as Israelites, and then i said (again someone correct me if i'm thinking wrong);

Quote;
"i thought that the reason why all Israelites after the complete scattering of the northern kingdom began to be called Jews was because;

(1) - For a long period they were the most pronounced tribe, tho not the only because were'nt Benjamin and Levi with them also? ...

(2) - They had Jerusalem and the Temple and eventually their worship of Jehovah came to be known as Judaism and so any such adherents to the religion automatically to the gentile was a Jew ... This just made me also think that the turning point of the world from seeing the Hebrew (Abraham) as an Israelite (Jacob) happened in this period and that after their return from Babylonian captivity they ALL were solidly sealed as Jews period ... Does this make sense, if not will someone that knows for sure make it plain?"

An example came to me ... In my lifetime as a descendant of Ham i've been known as Negro, African-American, and Black ... Because my ancestors who were once known as Negro's were never called Af-Am, or Black, does it change who they were descended from, or make them different from what we're presently called? ... i think not ... Now with this same analogy i'm baffled that most other folk if you say any one of the above terms in reference to a Hamitic group there's no problem, but when it comes to the Hebrew/Israelite/Jew there is ... How is this possible? ... Perhaps it's easier with we descendants of Ham because other folk can judge by our color ... But again if God can read hearts i know He knows who's who when it comes to His Israel ...

Sis D you wrote re: 144,000;
"Isn't this a rather small number?"

--- Amen ... Yes it is a small number in comparrison to even the 16 million Jews that are
censused to be on earth today and it's supposed to be as Rev. 14:4 calls them a "first fruits" gathering to God and the Lamb ---

Sis D you concluded;
"A question: If Abraham was to be the father of many nations, who are those nations?"

--- Right away i thought of Romans 4, particularly [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 ...

Sis D it's my understanding that ALL WE, regardless of ethnicity, who believe in Christ the promised seed thru Abraham line capable to blessing all nations, become spiritual sons and daughters of Abraham and heirs to God's covenant with him ... That's why when we become Christians OT history becomes our history also, we're grafted in and are therefore family - tho most Jews don't think this way ...

Here is a web-link that pretty much sums up what i believe regarding this;

ABRAHAM, The Father of the Faithful -
http://www.sentex.net/~tcc/abraham.html

Blessings in Christ Jesus!

--- i thought tho we humans may have trouble with deciphering who's a Hebrew/Isrealite/Jew or not it doesn't seem that God the Father has any trouble knowing who's who, even to the point of selecting them by tribes (if one believes as i a literal interpretation of the Revelation passage re: 144,000) ...

Now it matters very little what I call that creature. It has no impact upon its life whether or not I think it is a rabbit or a camel. However... if I go to the 'manual' to find out how to care for it, it will suddenly become very important. If I load it with a few hundred pounds of cargo and set it to cross the desert on a diet of thorns... now it begins to matter. ;-)

It is true that the Lord knoweth those who are His, but we should be very cautious how we apply labels if those labels are going to determine the way we behave towards 'Camels' or 'Israel'.

An example came to me ... In my lifetime as a descendant of Ham i've been known as Negro, African-American, and Black ... Because my ancestors who were once known as Negro's were never called Af-Am, or Black, does it change who they were descended from, or make them different from what we're presently called? ... i think not ...

In other posts I have advocated the use of my 'schlumpf' technque. As far as I know there is no such word; my apologies if it means something to any of our readers. ;-) The problem with words like 'Israel' is that we all think we know what it means but we all have slightly different definitions. This is where my 'schlumpf' technique helps. Instead of the word 'Israel' use the word 'schlumpf' and when I ask you what a 'schlumpf' is you have to define it in such a way that I don't misunderstand what you are talking about. I recommend this mental discipline for lots of the Bible words we use.

mamaluke's

In my mind, throughout man's history, the object of one's faith has always been God's Word since It's part of the Trinity, first to hear and know what HE says, to believe what He says, and to do what HE says. Even though the Word had has come in various forms (audible voice,laws,prophets,written,Christ in flesh,Christ in Word).)

We are on the edge of a complicated discussion here regarding Eternal Sonship or Subordinate Sonship we I want to avoid. The point I was trying to make was that Abraham's faith was not based upon the events of the Word's incarnation, life, death and resurrection. Abraham, almost certainly, did not know him as we know him. That does not make his faith less valid. In many ways it makes it all the more wonderful. But 'Christ' as the anointed Priest-Sacrifice, Abraham did not know. Nor 'Christ' as the Rejected-now-Enthroned one. Abraham, says the record, believed God. The God who was beginning to reveal his unique covenant keeping character under the name of Jehovah.

Why shouldn't the object of our faith be Christ for Christians, since Christ is the Living Word? Just as that same Word as the object of Abraham's faith?

mamaluke's

While the gentile Christian position is united in the risen Christ with Him as the Head of the Body. I think what I'm saying is that, how can one be half and half, partly in the Lord and partly in the Jewish King, if indeed the Kingdom of Israel is to be restored in the future (which I believe),then he would become a part of the remnant, especially looking at this in the light of physical functionality.

I am not being rude but I think this can only lead to schizophrenia of a kind which I think is all too evident in our day.

There is One Church, and One Body and One Baptism. If the blood descendent (Jew/Israel) is to come to God he must come through the torn veil of Christ's death, and when he comes in this way he will find that his greatest affinity is with those who have also come this way, not with his physical kin.

by Eli_Barnabas on 2006/8/22 12:59:28

There were two definite and distinct covenants, absolutely, and the first was abolished when Christ died on the cross. But just because there was two different covenants doesn't mean there are two different types of believers. It's all by faith. This hasn't changed.

We begin to see what a disturbing statement we find in “And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
(Matt 16:16-18 KJVS) What could 'my church' have meant to the disciples and this passage clearly sets the 'building' of 'my church' at a future time.

Bro Ron in reference to my analogy you wrote;
"Well this certainly had some effect on your kin down the years. The 'Christian' slave-keepers of Northern America justified their behaviour by saying that 'Ham' was under a curse. So did the 'Christian' Apartheid leaders of South Africa."

--- You know i'm beginning to worry that somehow i'm not making my points clear, tho they seem pretty clear to me :-P ... i just need some clarification here, what does the effect of what we were/are called have to do with my point that no matter what we were/are called we're still ethnically what we've always been? ... My point being that no matter what Jews were/are called they're still Israelites, and just because we can't decipher them as readily as we can folk of Hamitic descent God can, and while we're going back and forth in the issue His truth/plan goes marching on ---

Bro Ron you wrote;
"The problem with words like 'Israel' is that we all think we know what it means but we all have slightly different definitions. This is where my 'schlumpf' technique helps. Instead of the word 'Israel' use the word 'schlumpf' and when I ask you what a 'schlumpf' is you have to define it in such a way that I don't misunderstand what you are talking about. I recommend this mental discipline for lots of the Bible words we use."

--- Well i don't have a "'schlumpf' technque" when it comes to Hebrew/Israel/Jew ... i look at 1948's regathering of Israel and it's Hebrew/Israel/Jew to me ... Now i'm wondering if maybe questioning like yours and sis D's are only amongst a certain segment of or type christian, because saints in my circle (tho i admit we are pretty simplistic) don't seem to require such intense definition to point out a Hebrew/Isrealite/Jew or to support the now state of Israel as the fulfilment of Ezek. 37, and certainly neither does the world for when i hear slurs against a Hebrew/Israelite/Jew - no 'schlumpf' required there ---

Bro Ron you wrote;
"It is true that the Lord knoweth those who are His, but we should be very cautious how we apply labels if those labels are going to determine the way we behave towards 'Camels' or 'Israel'."

--- i take your use of the "winky-eye" emoticon to mean that you've made a point but i'm a bit thick ... So can i ask you these questions to better my understanding of you're more disciplined reasonings? ...

1 - i remember a while back when you posted the "Replacement Theology" thread, that was the first i'd ever heard of that ... Do you believe 'schlumpf' to be totally irrelevant now, replaced by the Church, then if so the following questions are moot ...

2 - If not then when you say "Israel" are you refering to the now state of Israel, and if not then who?

3 - When you say "apply labels" are you refering to how so many saints today look at the now state of Israel as the fulfilment of Ezek. 37, and if so do you see this label misapplied and why?

4 - And if so then how do you view the now state of Israel personally and/or spiritually and/or scripturally? ---

Hello Ron,

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Revelation 13:8)

I wrote earlier how people of old put their faith in Messiah who was to come, based upon the promise God gave to Adam of the seed who would crush the devil's head. They did not know who the Messiah was, but when Jesus was revealed as the Son of God men began to put their faith in Him. Notice: they did not STOP putting their faith in Messiah. That did not change, but now they had the Messiah Himself to place their faith; no longer in a future coming.

Therefore, when Peter declared "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God", He was declaring Jesus to be the Messiah, and Jesus affirmed that upon this Rock (the confession of Jesus Christ) He would build His Church. His Church being people who now would hold to Him as Christ, who would preach Him as Messiah, who would die for Him as Lord, etc. I suppose you could say THE Church has two eras, before and after Jesus, but it's all one and the self same Church. "...that they without us should not be made perfect." (Hebrews 11:40)

Rahman on 2006/8/24 18:03:38

1 - i remember a while back when you posted the "Replacement Theology" thread, that was the first i'd ever heard of that ... Do you believe 'schlumpf' to be totally irrelevant now, replaced by the Church, then if so the following questions are moot ...

2 - If not then when you say "Israel" are you refering to the now state of Israel, and if not then who?

3 - When you say "apply labels" are you refering to how so many saints today look at the now state of Israel as the fulfilment of Ezek. 37, and if so do you see this label misapplied and why?

4 - And if so then how do you view the now state of Israel personally and/or spiritually and/or scripturally? ---

2. I seldom refer to the contemporary Jewish state as just 'Israel'. I usually designate it by saying 'the nation state of Israel'. I don't think of the citizens of that state as 'Israel' but as 'Israelis'. I don't think the land was ever designated 'Israel' biblically but I am open to correction.

3. Ezek 37 refers to the 'whole house of Israel' but what does this mean in this context? v 15 refers to Judah AND then uses the term 'Ephraim' to designate the northern tribes of 'Israel'. It then regards the combined 'sticks' as one stick and the designation of that 'stick' is Israel. Those northern tribes have vanished and were never combined with the southern 'stick' physically.

4. I see the nation state of Israel as a legitimate sovereign nation state. I believe it has a right to exist and to defend itself. I do not believe it has the right to 'claim' the ancient promises that would give it a territory which would stretch from Egypt to the Euphrates.

The designation of 'Israel' became the inheritance of Judah and Benjamen and Levi. From the time of the Restoration Judah became 'Israel'. The covenant people and bearers of the promise. I do think that to apply the scriptural designation of 'Israel' to the nation state and citizens of modern Israel is not helpful in trying to understand the way the scriptures use 'Israel' which is why I wanted to define what the term meant from Genesis to Revelation. Israel = God's People.

I believe that God's People is now the Church of Jesus Christ and has been since Pentecost which was the inauguration of a New Covenant.

I mentioned in the other thread that I would not call my position 'Replacment Theology' although I know that is what others would call it. It depends on what is being replaced. Does the Church 'replace' Israel. No, the Church is Israel. The word has been redefined in the New Covenant.

Eli_Barnabas on 2006/8/24 18:31:16

I wrote earlier how people of old put their faith in Messiah who was to come, based upon the promise God gave to Adam of the seed who would crush the devil's head.

Their faith was usually simply obedience to the word that God had spoken to them. I think it is putting too much weight on the Gen 4 verses to say that Abel obeyed God in sacrificing an animal rather than a cabbage. Abel sacrificed 'in faith' which was why his sacrifice was accepted. It was not accepted because it was an animal but because Abel believed God as he made his sacrifice.

I think we load too much evangelical theology into the simple faith of the patriarchs.

I suppose you could say THE Church has two eras, before and after Jesus, but it's all one and the self same Church. "...that they without us should not be made perfect." (Hebrews 11:40)

Thanks bro Ron ...

i appreciate your taking the time to make your views plain to me :-) ...

Blessings in Christ Jesus!

Sis D ...

Is your view of 'schlumpfs' exactly the same as bro Ron's, or does it differ in any way(s) ...

All of a sudden, i believe our Lord has me very interested in this subject and i welcome to
know any other views out there that may be different from mine, and why ...

i've joined this Jewish website and i'm now listening to the free .mp3's on their history and politics which adresses some of the "who is a Jew now" points you brought up ... Very interesting listening ...

Zionism and the Arabs
by Luchins, Dr. David
http://www.aishaudio.com/search/results.php?sid=1pcomano4yjw9y8&directkw=politics

i bless God for this forum, and for you all, in our Lord's teaching me things i'd never come across otherwise ...

Blessings in Jesus! ---

i'm posting the two web links below because they coincide with this thought i had about why all descendants of Jacob are called Jews today ... This is what i'd said ...

Quote;
"i thought that the reason why all Israelites after the complete scattering of the northern kingdom began to be called Jews was because;

(2) - They had Jerusalem and the Temple and eventually their worship of Jehovah came to be known as Judaism and so any such adherents to the religion automatically to the gentile was a Jew ... This just made me also think that the turning point of the world from seeing the Hebrew (Abraham) as an Israelite (Jacob) happened in this period and that after their return from Babylonian captivity they ALL were solidly sealed as Jews period ... Does this make sense, if not will someone that knows for sure make it plain?"

What struck me was what Paul said of himself here;

"Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia" (Acts 21:39)

"I also am an Israelite (Jacob), of the seed of Abraham (Hebrew), of the tribe of Benjamin." (Romans 11:1)

Tho Paul was a Benjamite he called himself a Jew, and i think the reason he did was because Jew by
this time was derived from the pratice of Judaism moreso than being a member of the actual tribe of Judah (as clearly Paul was not) ...

Was Paul a Jew or a Benjamite?
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20041009.htm

And this one follows sis D's thread question, and my own line of thinking re: Hebrew/Israelite/Jew ...

Who Was The First Jew?
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050219.htm

Interesting subject!

The word Jew originally meant the descendants of Judah and the very first time the word is used is“Then Rezin king of Syria and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to war: and they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him. At that time Rezin king of Syria recovered Elath to Syria, and drave the Jews from Elath: and the Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day.”
(2Kings 16:5-6 KJVS)Here it is used to distinguish between the people of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the people of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. It tells of an alliance between 'Israel' and 'Syria' which resulted in the loss of the Red Sea port of Elath.

Later the word is used to describe the people of the Southern Kingdom: 2Kings 16:6; 25:25; Neh 1:2; 2:16; 4:1-2,12; 5:1,8,17; 6:6; 13:23; Esth 2:5; 3:4,6,13; 4:3,7,13-14,16; 5:13; 6:10,13; 8:3,5,7-9,11,13,16-9:3; 9:5-6,10,12-13,15-16,18-20,22-25,27-31; 10:3; Jer 32:12; 34:9; 38:19; 40:11-12; 41:3; 43:9; 44:1; 52:28,30; Zech 8:23. Is it used most frequently in the book of Esther.

During the exile in Bablyon, cut off from all possibility of temple worship, "Judaism" was born. From this time Jew means a people AND the distinctive religion of that people. "Judaism" with all its exta laws was a constant target of Christ's words.“Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”
(Matt 23:1-4 KJVS)
As a Pharisee Paul was heavily committed to Judaism.“For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.”
(Gal 1:13-14 NKJV) This is the only reference to Judaism beyond the gospels. It is important to notice that from the time of Paul's conversion he abandoned "Judaism". His vows and sacrifices were not part of Judaism but part of the Temple worship.

It is also important to understand that modern Judaism developed after the time of Christ. Modern "Jewish" rites of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_mitzvah]Bar Mitzvah[/url] were not around in bible days and probably developed in medieval europe. There would be no modern "Judaism" if the ancient Jews had not rejected their Messiah.

The word derives from Judah which itself means "Praise" which gives us the key to a pun used by Paul in “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
(Rom 2:28-29 KJVS)The whole nation was to be to God's praise but as Isaiah and Paul were to say they became a cause of blasphemy rather than of praise.

We always have to examine words like Israel and Jew in their context to get a clear understanding of what is being said. Racially Paul remained a 'Jew' just as I will always remain an Englishman, but he left much of his culture behind and I must do the same.

Bro Ron you wrote;
"During the exile in Bablyon, cut off from all possibility of temple worship, "Judaism" was born. From this time Jew means a people AND the distinctive religion of that people."

---Thanks for further clarity ... this is also what i've learned from recent research---

Bro Ron you also wrote;
"We always have to examine words like Israel and Jew in their context to get a clear understanding of what is being said."

---i'm also beginning to get a better understanding of what you meant when you said this before ---

Bro Ron you finished;
"Racially Paul remained a 'Jew' just as I will always remain an Englishman, but he left much of his culture behind and I must do the same."

--- OK bear with me here, i understand your point about Paul's abandonment of Judaism as his religion (i went and checked Gal. 1 and in my KJV it says Paul calls it "the Jews religion") and thus when he refered to himself as a Jew he wasn't refering to religion ... Right? ...

1 - So technically regarding race wouldn't Paul be more primarily a Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite/Benjamite, and not a Jew (Judite) since he did not descend directly from Judah? ...

2 - Also in doing so would it be safe to say that when Paul refered to himself as a Jew (racially), tho actually being a Benjamite, that he did so in line with what everyone had come to designate all descendants of Israel as? ...

3 - And finally if that be the case then would'nt any other Israelite regardless of their tribe do the same, and be viewed/called the same?

4 - i know the other 10 tribes are refered to as the lost tribes, but do you think that when Babylon defeated Assyria, and after the Jewish captives were released from Babylon and some returned, that many of the other ten tribes also found there way back to Jerusalem also - Or when you/others speak of the 10 lost tribes is it thought that they all just somehow disappeared, were all killed off, or somehow otherwise completely obliterated off the face of the earth? ... If you/others believe this is there any proof to this? ...

Of course i don't have any physical proof to the contrary either but because of my literal view of the 144,000 as first fruits to God and the Lamb, and what God said in Ezek 37 regarding Israel's future, and in particular these verses ...

[22] And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
[23] Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
[24] And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
[25] And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

... i don't believe the other 10 tribes we're completely erased ... i'm not presenting this as an argument or an attempt to prove but as with yours just a statement of what i believe ... i believe that what happened was that at the coming back to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity all Israelites got put under the same moniker = Jew, and that that designation was still in effect in Paul's day just as it is today ... As i also believe that in Israel today, and all around the world, those we call Jews, who are in fact descendants of Israel and not gentile converts, they/we may no longer be able to designate as of what tribe, but God can and will to His future glory

i get where you're coming from on your racially being an Englishman, that's modern, but lately i see all Caucasians as anciently being desendants of Japheth, just as i now view myself less African than Hamitic and have begun to say so (another opening toward sharing Christ) ... Somehow (for me) when i take it there it points it all back to God and less to man ... And amen on the abandonment of our "cultures" in regards to Christ, for they ARE real obstacles against attaining a mindset/heartset to our spiritual "oneness" in Him ...

Blessings in Jesus ---

Bro Ron you wrote;
"During the exile in Bablyon, cut off from all possibility of temple worship, "Judaism" was born. From this time Jew means a people AND the distinctive religion of that people."

---Thanks for further clarity ... this is also what i've learned from recent research---

Bro Ron you also wrote;
"We always have to examine words like Israel and Jew in their context to get a clear understanding of what is being said."

---i'm also beginning to get a better understanding of what you meant when you said this before ---

Bro Ron you finished;
"Racially Paul remained a 'Jew' just as I will always remain an Englishman, but he left much of his culture behind and I must do the same."

--- OK bear with me here, i understand your point about Paul's abandonment of Judaism as his religion (i went and checked Gal. 1 and in my KJV it says Paul calls it "the Jews religion") and thus when he refered to himself as a Jew he wasn't refering to religion ... Right? ...

1 - So technically regarding race wouldn't Paul be more primarily a Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite/Benjamite, and not a Jew (Judite) since he did not descend directly from Judah? ...

2 - Also in doing so would it be safe to say that when Paul refered to himself as a Jew (racially), tho actually being a Benjamite, that he did so in line with what everyone had come to designate all descendants of Israel as? ...

3 - And finally if that be the case then would'nt any other Israelite regardless of their tribe do the same, and be viewed/called the same?

4 - i know the other 10 tribes are refered to as the lost tribes, but do you think that when Babylon defeated Assyria, and after the Jewish captives were released from Babylon and some returned, that many of the other ten tribes also found there way back to Jerusalem - Or when you/others speak of the 10 lost tribes is it thought that they all just somehow disappeared, were all killed off, or somehow otherwise completely obliterated off the face of the earth? ... If you/others believe this is there any proof to this? ...

Of course i don't have any physical proof to the contrary either but because of my literal view of the 144,000 as first fruits to God and the Lamb, and what God said in Ezek 37 regarding Israel's future, and in particular these verses ...

[22] And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:
[23] Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.
[24] And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
[25] And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

... i don't believe the other 10 tribes we're completely erased ... i'm not presenting this as an argument or an attempt to prove but as with yours just a statement of what i believe ... i believe that what happened was that at the coming back to Jerusalem from Babylonian captivity all Israelites got put under the same moniker = Jew, and that that designation was still in effect in Paul's day just as it is today ... As i also believe that in Israel today, and all around the world, those we call Jews, who are in fact descendants of Israel and not gentile converts, they/we may no longer be able to designate as of what tribe, but God can and will to His future glory

i get where you're coming from on your racially being an Englishman, that's modern, but lately i see all Caucasians as anciently being desendants of Japheth, just as i now view myself less African than Hamitic and have begun to say so (another opening toward sharing Christ) ... Somehow (for me) when i take it there it points it all back to God and less to man ... And amen on the abandonment of our "cultures" in regards to Christ, for they ARE real obstacles against attaining a mindset/heartset to our spiritual "oneness" in Him ...

Blessings in Jesus ---

--- Bro Ron my other questions made me think of this you wrote when i asked what you believed concerning "now" Israel ... You wrote; ---

Quote;
3. Ezek 37 refers to the 'whole house of Israel' but what does this mean in this context? v 15 refers to Judah AND then uses the term 'Ephraim' to designate the northern tribes of 'Israel'. It then regards the combined 'sticks' as one stick and the designation of that 'stick' is Israel. Those northern tribes have vanished and were never combined with the southern 'stick' physically.

--- Now if i can ask this question ...

1 - Regarding Ezek. 37 - i take it that since you don't see the now state of Israel as it's fulfilment in 1948, am i correct in thinking that you see it's fulfilment to be yet still future?

2 - i ask this because even if you see the regathering as yet still future, it seems to me in answer of your questions that just because we don't see the representation of the other 10 tribes today doesn't it stand to reason that they'd still have be here (even if we can't determine them) in order for God to reunite them even in the future?

In vs. [22] God make distinct reference to both kingdoms: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

Then i noticed what you'd pointed out regarding the reuniting of "the stick of Judah" and "the stick of Ephraim" but after both references it also says "and for the children of Israel his companions" and "and for all the house of Israel his companions" ...

3 - Even tho God makes distinct representation with Judah and Ephraim, doesn't this following "and for all the house of Israel his companions" seem to be inclusive of all Jacob's offspring? ...

To me it means "the WHOLE house of Israel ...

Rahman on 2006/8/29 20:45:15

--- OK bear with me here, i understand your point about Paul's abandonment of Judaism as his religion (i went and checked Gal. 1 and in my KJV it says Paul calls it "the Jews religion") and thus when he refered to himself as a Jew he wasn't refering to religion ... Right? ...

1 - So technically regarding race wouldn't Paul be more primarily a Shemite/Hebrew/Israelite/Benjamite, and not a Jew (Judite) since he did not descend directly from Judah? ...

Just as all the MacDonalds in the world are not descended from Mr MacDonald included his workers and tenants and even slaves, so Judah as a tribe is not all pure-Judah in its blood line. People could also switch tribes! Elisabeth and Mary were kinsfolk but Elisabeth was from the tribe of Levi and Mary from Judah. These are not strict scientific catagories but groupings of people.

Originally the portion or lot of the tribe of Benjamin was was next to Judah's. In Judges 20 & 21 the tribe/clan of Benjamin was almost wiped out by the other clans. it remained the smallest of the clans of Israel as Saul says to Samuel“And Saul answered and said, Am not I a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? and my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? wherefore then speakest thou so to me?”
(1Sam 9:21 KJVS) When the kingdom divided during the days of Rehoboam the clan of Benjamin remained loyal to the house of David“And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.”
(1Kings 12:21 KJVS) David's descendants ruled over the house of Judah until the end of the Southern Kingdom in 597BC. During this time Benjamin was always associated with Judah and from this time when the scripture says 'Judah'...

2. ...Often means the kingdom of Judah which comprised Judah and Benjamin and some of Levi and a sprinkling of other tribes who had chosen to identify themselves with the Southern Kingdom. This multi-clan kingdom is now called 'Judah' as distinct from 'Israel' (the Northern Kingdom). in 722BC Israel, the larger Northern Kingdom, was taken into exile by Assyria. Judah, the smaller Southern KIngdom (only about the size of an English county) survived another 140 years. Israel (NK) passed from history into myth and legend. These are the so-called 'lost tribes' of Israel. They were assimilated into other populations in the land of their exile and have become unidentifiable.

3. The people who returned 70 years later from Babylon to Jerusalem were all known as Judah, irrespective of their original tribal roots. “Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah.”
(Ezra 1:1-2 KJVS) Judah is now also a geographical location and a nation state.

The inhabitants of Judah become known as Jews! So the word Jew sometimes means the citizens of Judah. Because the returning people were all people who were responding to God all Jews by political designation were also practicing 'Judaism' as it had developed in Babylon but now we had Temple worship AND synagogue attendance. So the restored people were Jews politically and nationally AND Jews religiously. BUT they were NOT all Jews in the sense of being descended from Judah.

There have always been proselytes in different eras of the Bible story. Naaman was a famous proselyte. During the times before Christ proselytes had to undergo several ceremonies including both circumcision and baptism. Both David's grandmother and great grandmother were proseytes. (Matt 1:5) Some Jews regard Naaman as a better proselyte than Jethro.because of these two verses.“And Jethro said, Blessed be the Lord, who hath delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.”
(Ex 18:10-11 KJVS)

“Then went he (Naaman) down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean. And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.”
(2Kings 5:14-15 KJVS)Jethro saw God only as greater than all gods but Naaman recognized God as the only god. Naaman became the classic proselyte and to this day proselytes to 'Judaism' conduct their own baptism as did Naaman. They linked together the 'baptisms' of the Red Sea (and the Jordan) with the Circumcision at Gilgal and believed this united a proselyte into the corporate experience of 'Israel' the people of God. So a proselyte also become a 'son of Israel'.

So Paul was almost certainly genetically of Benjamin. As regards his nationality and religion he was a 'Jew'. As far as we know if he was pure-blood Benjamin he was also descended from Shem and Eber and was therefore both Semitic and Hebrew.

3 - And finally if that be the case then would'nt any other Israelite regardless of their tribe do the same, and be viewed/called the same?

4 - i know the other 10 tribes are refered to as the lost tribes, but do you think that when Babylon defeated Assyria, and after the Jewish captives were released from Babylon and some returned, that many of the other ten tribes also found there way back to Jerusalem - Or when you/others speak of the 10 lost tribes is it thought that they all just somehow disappeared, were all killed off, or somehow otherwise completely obliterated off the face of the earth? ... If you/others believe this is there any proof to this? ...

If you want to read more about the moment that Judah became separated from Israel you might like to read an introduction to the OT that I did some years ago. The relevant section is called [url=http://mp3.biblebase.com/workmanworkshops/The%20Seed_10.PDF]Division[/url]. ou can find the whole OT introduction [url=http://wiki.biblebase.com/index.php/Old_Testament_Introduction.]here.[/url]

Rahman on 2006/8/29 21:34:55

1 - Regarding Ezek. 37 - i take it that since you don't see the now state of Israel as it's fulfilment in 1948, am i correct in thinking that you see it's fulfilment to be yet still future?

I do believe the nation state of Isreal has a right to exist and to have defensible borders. I don't even say it isn't Israel, I just say I don't need to believe so for my understanding of prophecy.

3 - Even tho God makes distinct representation with Judah and Ephraim, doesn't this following "and for all the house of Israel his companions" seem to be inclusive of all Jacob's offspring? ...

---Wow Bro Ron ...

i thank God and you for this info ... i said this before but now with much greater appreciation and humbleness of spirit, "you are a wealth of information"! ... This subject has put such an excitement in my spirit, but why only God knows at this point ...

i list the points below only to designate that i now understand and agree with your views -

Quote;
2. ...Often means the kingdom of Judah which comprised Judah and Benjamin and some of Levi and a sprinkling of other tribes who had chosen to identify themselves with the Southern Kingdom. This multi-clan kingdom is now called 'Judah' as distinct from 'Israel' (the Northern Kingdom). in 722BC Israel, the larger Northern Kingdom, was taken into exile by Assyria. Judah, the smaller Southern KIngdom (only about the size of an English county) survived another 140 years. Israel (NK) passed from history into myth and legend. These are the so-called 'lost tribes' of Israel. They were assimilated into other populations in the land of their exile and have become unidentifiable.

Quote;
3. The people who returned 70 years later from Babylon to Jerusalem were all known as Judah, irrespective of their original tribal roots.

Quote;
The inhabitants of Judah become known as Jews! So the word Jew sometimes means the citizens of Judah. Because the returning people were all people who were responding to God all Jews by political designation were also practicing 'Judaism' as it had developed in Babylon but now we had Temple worship AND synagogue attendance. So the restored people were Jews politically and nationally AND Jews religiously. BUT they were NOT all Jews in the sense of being descended from Judah.

Quote;
So Paul was almost certainly genetically of Benjamin. As regards his nationality and religion he was a 'Jew'. As far as we know if he was pure-blood Benjamin he was also descended from Shem and Eber and was therefore both Semitic and Hebrew.

Quote;
Yes, although when Paul calls himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews he means that his whole mind-set and upbringing was Hebraic in culture as distinct from many 'Jews' who were Hellenist or Greek-culture.

--- Whoa, now this is a very insightful point and one that i'd not even wondered about before ... This makes so much sense in light of the research i'd done before and finding out the extensiveness of the Greek impact on the Jews ---

Quote;
If you want to read more about the moment that Judah became separated from Israel you might like to read an introduction to the OT that I did some years ago. The relevant section is called Division. ou can find the whole OT introduction here.

--- Thanks bro Ron ... As we say in the states; i'm on this like white on rice! :-D ---

Bro Ron you wrote;
"No, you are not right. I see no need, Biblically, for a restored nation state of Israel. I do not look for a future one and don't regard the current one as a fulfillment of those ancient prophecies."

I do believe the nation state of Isreal has a right to exist and to have defensible borders. I don't even say it isn't Israel, I just say I don't need to believe so for my understanding of prophecy."

---OK ... i see ... This explains for me why you're not caught up in, like so many other saints - me included, seeing the "now" Israel as the regathering (1948) of Ezek. 37 and a sign pointing to a even more immenient return of Christ ...

This subject is so very interesting, as are your views and points, and i thank God again for this oppurtunity to both learn from and discuss it with you ... God is good! ---