All Israel Will Be Saved?

The other thread about Israel brought this question to mind, will all of Israel be saved?

Ro 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:

Will what this verse says literally happen?

Jordan

Will what this verse says literally happen?

This question is similar to questions that surround the coming of the Lord. There are two ways to answer the question, I think. One is a 'future' YES and one is a present day 'YES'. In like manor the Lord is coming for His Saints with ten thousands of His Saints, etc. This is a future event. But the Lord comes for Saints every hour of every day. For all that have died in Christ- the day of their death He 'came for them'.

Putting off the salvation of Jews to the future is for me a most terrible concept. I may not be a missionary to the Jews, but as each of us do in life, we encounter Jews just as we do non-Jews. Jews are both ethnic and religious. Some will argue this point- but this has always been the case. Paul was a 'Hebrew among Hebrews' and technically and arguable had a more pure ancestry than our Lord; as Ruth was in our Lord's bloodline. She was a Moabite (See Matthew 1:5). There has been some assimilation. But they have guarded their culture and heritage.

If any Jew is to be saved it will be through [i]the Door[/i] as coming in any other way is to be a thief and a robber. You will notice that some preaching in Acts is directed at folks as sinners. Many had no real trouble believing in and receiving Jesus Christ. They just did not want to turn away from their sins. For the Jews, in many ways, it was the opposite. The preaching was to the end that they might believe on Jesus Christ. This would mean to cease salvation by the works of the law and to receive the Holy Spirit by faith.

The trouble is that many are locked up in Rabbinic Judaism. This is the religion of the Pharisees twice over. When Ezra began to read the Law and attempt to bring the people under the Law a trend was started among the Jews that few realize. Some historians date his death as essentially the end of the prophets in Israel until John Baptist. But if you read Ezra several things happened in response to simply trying to 'line up' with the Law- whereas we would expect that the people would have sought out a prophetic word from God for direction. Instead, they went to the book and devised their own plans and oaths.

Ezra is a hero among heroes to the Rabbinic Jews. They attribute more things to him than we can list in a short post. He is praised for his stand against the newly formed Sadducees and is said to have written the entire Old Testament out from memory. This likely adds weight to their teaching that the Moral Law was passed down orally and was later written down. To this day many Rabbinic Jews consider STUDY of the scriptures as the highest form of worship. It all seems very noble? Right? Not so fast. They came to the place where they would not receive any prophetic revelation from God. Their attitude became one in which they, the Rabbi's, reserved the right to interpret everything from dreams to visions. They could over-rule a Prophet. As far as they were concerned- the authority was [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1959]NOT IN HEAVEN[/url], it was their alone as received from Moses. And being able to prove a false doctrine from scripture exegetically, they userped God's authority and right to interpret His own Word.

So the Rabbi's are in authority and they look to the Talmudic writings for answers. In their belief, God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mount Sinai and they no longer pay attention to a heavenly voices that attempted to intervene in matters of [i]Halakhah[/i] (application of the word to peoples lives). God already wrote in the Torah at Mount Sinai (Exodus 23:2), so for their interpretation- “After the majority to incline.” From this verse they propose that Halakhic disputes must be resolved by majority vote of the Rabbis. God could not contradict His own decision to allow Torah questions to be decided by free debate and majority vote. This is why it is so difficult to reach a Jew. They look almost completely to the Rabbi as THE authority.

The only real hope, I believe, for a Jew to come to know Christ is for them to know the true presence of God as He is manifest among believing Christians or sovereignly (as with Paul) experiencing God- manifest (A theophanic manifestation). Some are confused and want to believe but the have been taught against Christ since they were Children. They see the Cross as a sword dipped in hundreds of years of Jewish blood. On and on and on. This is because of so much antisemitism over the years- especially some of the early church fathers.

This is not even a decent introduction to an introduction to the issues involved. But hopefully it sheds some light to get things started. Jews have to be saved just like everyone else. To reach them almost requires that we examine the host of issues involved to even get our head around where they are coming from. They so easily write Christians off. We have to study if we are serious about reaching them...

In a nutshell, all does mean ALL.

So, yes, Paul teaches that eventually, all of those who are part of the nation of Israel will come to salvation. This is confirmed also the closing chapters of Zechariah, where Israel is brought through a time of burning. Those who survive the redemptive judgments God brings upon them through will find salvation. Just as the prophet Isaiah also said, "Then [b]all[/b] your people will be righteous; they will possess the land forever, the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, that I might be glorified." (Isaiah 60:21)

Also just a note, the apostle Paul argues that the spiritual value of the eventual conversion of all the Jews will be so great that it will bring about the resurrection of the dead at the end of the age (Romans 11:12-15). Why? For if their rejection of the gospel brought about the blessing of the gospel being spread to all the Gentile nations, then their acceptance of the gospel will be a greater blessing than their rejection! So much so as to bring about life to the dead!

I highly recommend the teachings of Art Katz concerning these things- which are available on this site. He has many sermons on this very issue. Though I don't know if it is a great place to start, consider listening to his 2 part session on "Romans 11" from the 2006 Prophetical school, where he goes through much of this stuff verse by verse.

Ro 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:

but before this Paul says:

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Romans 9:6-8 (KJV)

and

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
Romans 9:27 (KJV)

HomeFree89 wrote:
Ro 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:

Will what this verse says literally happen?

Perhaps listening to this may help:
[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=14171]Men's Hatred of God - Part 1[/url] and [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=14172]Part 2[/url]

This is part of Ben Israel's 2006 Prophetic School, which can be found in its entirety under [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=173]Art Katz[/url]. Reggie Kelly brings some particularly sharp insight into Romans 9-11, taking into consideration the Old Testament Prophetic texts.

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

All Israel shall be saved, which are not of Israel but the Israel of God, which the Word of God has taken effect. Huh!!!???

So who of Israel are the all?

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 9:9 For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Rom 9:10 And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac;

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

Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

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.

So all is not all?

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

In Christ: Phillip

GrannieAnnie wrote:
In Hermeneutics class, we were taught, there is a time to not spiritualize Scripture .... When there are so many proof texts cross-referenced to prove a literal translation ... spiritualizing is not appropriate, especially in changing or forming new doctrines. As just for one belief, off the top of my head - the Oneness doctrine.

Spiritualising is not a bad thing, in itself, as long as it doesn't [b]replace[/b] the plain reading of Scripture, but rather enhances it. J Jacob Prasch teaches much on Jewish Hermeneutics, or Midrash. The summary of this, is that the Jews would read the verse plainly, but then look into the allegoric implications of the plain statement, in order to understand the depth of the statement.

Understanding this concept can be helpful in understanding prophetic literature, in that successive fulfillments occur, each being more and more precisely matching the ultimate fulfilment. Because of this, events such as Israel's return to their land under Nehemiah and again in 1948, serve as a shadow of an ultimate return, when the "Law shall go forth out of Zion", and "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares" and "learn war no more". This component of their return is as yet unfulfilled, and therefore there must be an ultimate fulfilment to come, after a later diaspora.

Each successive "fulfilment" gives us some insight into the final one, even when we look prior to the prophetic statement, to Abraham and later Jacob's sojourn into Egypt, departing to journey toward Canaan, we can grasp subtle details which the prophets merely allude to. Even from here, we can see something of our own sojourning through the world, as a type of a future Time of Jacob's Trouble, leading to the restoration of the ultimate God's chosen people.

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

All Israel shall be saved, which are not of Israel but the Israel of God, which the Word of God has taken effect. Huh!!!???

So who of Israel are the all?

....

So all is not all?

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

I must say, Phillip that I am often finding myself a little confused after reading your posts. I'm sure the same can occur when people read my long winded ramblings, but nevertheless, this is yours I am commenting on, now.

You have said, "all is not all", which one can read as either their will be some that are not included, but for some reason "all" is still used; Israel has been replaced by the church; only those who are left standing will be saved. I personally believe the latter.

Jordan has brought us one verse of the Epistle to the Romans, which is preceded by:

[b]22[/b] Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in [i]his[/i] goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
[b]23[/b] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
[b]24[/b] 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 [i]branches[/i], be graffed into their own olive tree?
[b]25[/b] 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.
[b]26[/b] 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:
[b]Rom 11:22-26[/b]

It would seem that Paul is pointing our attention to a future time, when Israel is grated back into God's vine. Obviously there will be Jews that are being born again before this ultimate re-grafting, just as Gentiles like Rahab and Ruth were "grafted in" during the old covenant. God is not, and never has been, the respecter of persons, however it would appear that for some reason He has chosen to demonstrate something to the world, and its principalities and power, through the chastening of Israel, and the restoration of a remnant. Just as He hardened Pharaoh's heart, prior to the Exodus, so He has and will continue to harden the hearts of the Jews. Could it be the the "all Israel" are those that are still alive when this event occurs?

Consider also Isaiah's words:

[b]1[/b] Thus saith the LORD, The heaven [i]is[/i] my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?
[b]2[/b] For all those [i]things[/i] hath mine hand made, and all those [i]things[/i] have been, saith the LORD: but [u]to this man will I look, [i]even[/i] to [i]him that is[/i] poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.[/u]
[b]3[/b] He that killeth an ox is as [i]if[/i] he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, [/i]as if[/i] he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, [i]as if he offered[/i] swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, [i]as if[/i] he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations.
[b]4[/b] [u]I also will choose their delusions[/u], and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose [i]that[/i] in which I delighted not.
[b]5[/b] Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.
[b]6[/b] A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.
[b]7[/b] Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
[b]8[/b] Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? [u]Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? [i]or[/i] shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children[/u].
[b]9[/b] Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut [i]the womb[/i]? saith thy God.
[b]10[/b] Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
[b]11[/b] That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.
[b]12[/b] For thus saith the LORD, Behold, [u]I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck[/u], ye shall be borne upon [i]her[/i] sides, and be dandled upon [i]her[/i] knees.
[b]13[/b] As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and [i]ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.[/i]
[b]Is 66:1-13[/b]

Could it be that God is saying that He will literally birth the remainder of Israel in one day? Art and Reggie, in the sermon that I posted earlier, suggest that Israel shall be saved prior to their repentance, and that their repentance shall spring forth out of the mercy that has been shown to them, by God in their restoration. If this is the case, then indeed "all is not all", for prior to this occurring, two out of three of the nation of Israel around the globe (presently approx 15,000,000 people) shall perish. Obviously those shall not be saved, in spite of "all" else being saved.

In a nutshell, all does mean ALL.

If "all Israel" shall be saved, and I believe it, what can "Israel" mean? Does this mean every single individual of the genes of Abraham who are alive at this point will be saved? If "Israel" means the 'covenant people' then the verse is easily understood, if it means 'all descendants of Abraham' I have no idea what it could mean.

brethren
Greetings in Christ's name by whose Blood we are saved. AMEN.

i think it is necessary to note that Paul also said that not all who are Israel are Abraham's seed. i think it was mentioned earlier that there is the prophecy of Zechariah in which 2/3 of Israel will be cut off and the remainder will be purified and saved. Perhaps all of Israel doesn't mean every Jew but rather every Jew who is elected for salvation just as we were elected before the setting of the foundation of the earth.

something to consider perhaps?

Grace and Peace to you all in Christ. AMEN.

If "all Israel" shall be saved, and I believe it, what can "Israel" mean? Does this mean every single individual of the genes of Abraham who are alive at this point will be saved?

Yes, I believe that all Jews who survive the final purging/redemptive judgment of God (in which many will die) will all be saved.

Yes, I believe that all Jews who survive the final purging/redemptive judgment of God (in which many will die) will all be saved.

edit: ie one parent Jewish
one grandparent Jewish
one great grandparent Jewish
one great great grandparent Jewish..

...you get my drift?

One [url=http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abrahams_Chromosomes$.asp]Jewish Rabbi[/url] says "And indeed, the number of people in the world today with the "Abrahamic Genetic Signature" is too large to count precisely. A reasonable estimate is in the hundreds of millions."

Bro Ron

philologos wrote:

Yes, I believe that all Jews who survive the final purging/redemptive judgment of God (in which many will die) will all be saved.

and how are you defining 'Jew'?

edit: ie one parent Jewish
one grandparent Jewish
one great grandparent Jewish
one great great grandparent Jewish..

...you get my drift?

One [url=http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Abrahams_Chromosomes$.asp]Jewish Rabbi[/url] says "And indeed, the number of people in the world today with the "Abrahamic Genetic Signature" is too large to count precisely. A reasonable estimate is in the hundreds of millions."

Greetings in Christ's name brethren.

what does it matter how we define what a Jew is? The question we should be asking is how does [i][b]God[/b][/i] define who/what is a Jew. Clearly it is not wholly a thing about genetics but there is a spiritual aspect of it for which we must turn to God for explanation because our own thoughts no matter how smart are more than woefully inadequate but they are in fact abominable before Him.

God looks at the inward parts, the inward circumcision of the heart which is done by Him. God also reserves the right to elect according to His good pleasure which Jews are to be saved and this is the "All of Israel" which will be saved.

i guess we could say in short that the Jews in question here are the ones which God has called from before the setting of the foundations of the earth?

something to consider perhaps?

Grace and Peace in Christ to you all. AMEN.

...you get my drift?

That's a great question to which God perhaps only knows. To step out on a limb, I imagine one would need to have at least one Jewish parent to be qualified. For even Christ came from a genealogy that was not entirely pure. For Rahab was a Gentile. Yet Him having this Gentile blood did not disqualify Him from being the seed of Abraham.

However, there does seem to be a point in which enough intermingling would make one not of Jewish descent. For Christ when talking to the "half-breed" Samaritan woman reminded her that "Salvation is of the Jews," and reminded the apostles in their initial mission not to go to the Samaritans, "but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

So, it would seem that merely having a few drops of Jewish blood would not qualify one to be part of "all Israel."

So, it would seem that merely having a few drops of Jewish blood would not qualify one to be part of "all Israel."

Would Caleb have been included? He was an Edomite though thoroughly one of the covenant people of Israel.

Would Caleb have been included? He was an Edomite though thoroughly one of the covenant people of Israel.

Good question as well. Caleb is part of the "mixed multitude" that came out of Egypt, and I think one would better understand Him as a Jewish convert that finds identification with the people of God through the old covenant. I don't believe the hope of Paul in Romans 11, of the natural branches being grafted back in again, would apply to converts to Judaism. For such are not natural branches, but are wild branches, like you and me. Paul seems to have in mind those who are of semitic origins through Abraham.

I don't believe the hope of Paul in Romans 11, of the natural branches being grafted back in again, would apply to converts to Judaism.

Looking at all these passages, it seems to me that all Israel shall be saved, because only those who are of faith are Israel, only those who are of faith are children of Abraham, and God saves all those who are of faith.

Here is a repeat of something I posted way back in 2004/9/6 14:18 in a [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2915&forum=35&start=70&viewmode=flat&order=0]similar thread.[/url] I think many misread the text in

[color=0000FF]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 [u]so[/u] 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 11:25-26 KJVS)[/color]

Many read this as though it says 'and THEN...' as if this event follows the previous ones but this is not what the word 'so' means.
The word translated 'so' in the your quotation is important. Does it mean subsequently or consequently? ie does it mean 'then',happening later or does it mean the 'result' is... I think an examination of Pauls use of this word in Romans and in the rest of the NT will make it clear that he does not use it in the sense of 'next event'.

I believe, with all my heart, that 'all Israel shall be saved'; the question is 'what does Paul mean by Israel in this context?' That is consequently not subsequently.

The NASB has seen this and translates; 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." (Rom 11:25-26 NASB)

Pauls use of 'houtos' meaning 'so' or 'thus' rather than 'then' can be seen in 3779 (thus) Paul's use of ([url=http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3779&Version=kjv]houtOs[/url]) in Romans 1:15,4:18,5:12,15,18-19,21,6:4,11,19,9:20,10:6, 11:5,26,31,12:5,15:20

I have heard very well versed bible student say "Romans says 'and then all Israel shall be saved' but it doesn't. It says and 'so' ie consequently 'all Israel shall be saved'. This is not a time line we are following but an all embracing spiritual truth. We need to keep in mind Paul's opening statements on this issue; Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: (Rom 9:6 KJV)

To understand the implications of an "houtOs" we must examine what has already preceded it. An "houtOs" does not add new information, but draws a conclusion from information already previously given. This "houtOs" introduces the conculsion to all that has been said in Ro 9-11, the burden of which is that there is "no difference" between Jew and Gentiles as regards their acceptance with God. Jews would be rejected because of unbelief. Gentiles would be accepted through their faith. If a Jew repents, and believes he will be grafted in again to God's original root. A Gentile who has believed should not be highminded. If he does not continue in God's prescribed way he "also" will be cut off"

but whatever happens to an individual from either group... all Israel shall be saved.

So...'in that day' a warrior in faith like Caleb would be rejected but an atheistic, devil worshipping, descendant of Abraham (like sons of Sceva) would be included in the 'all Israel' that is to be saved? As would an untaught babe of Abraham's line and the descendant of Abraham who lies in a drunken stupor?

I'm not sure you understand me??? I'm not sure I understand your exact question???

Simply put Romans 11 describes what has been the present situation of Jews for the past 2,000 years. Paul says that the majority of the Jews have rejected Christ, with only a small handful of Jews believing in Him. Their rejection of Christ has turned out to be a blessing to we who are Gentiles, giving us the opportunity to receive the Gospel.

However, Romans 11 doesn't merely describe the present circumstances. In it Paul also gives us what it is exactly what he hopes for the Jewish people in the future. Paul says the Jews have presently rejected Christ, which has meant blessing for us. Then he goes on to say that they will not always reject Christ. For there is coming a day when all of the Jews alive will come to a saving faith in Christ.

And if their rejection of Christ meant blessing for us Gentiles, then the Jews final acceptance of Christ will be of far greater blessing-- Paul says it will do nothing less than bring about the resurrection of the dead.

And how is it that this great conversion of the Jews will happen? Paul says it will be through the primarily Gentile witness of the Church, which provokes unbelieving Israel to jealousy.

This is the plain and literal argument of Paul in Romans 11.

Looking at all these passages, it seems to me that all Israel shall be saved, because only those who are of faith are Israel, only those who are of faith are children of Abraham, and God saves all those who are of faith

It's nice to proof-text Scripture to make it say something other than what it says in context. If you read Romans 11 carefully, Paul is clearly talking about the literal and physical offspring of Abraham:

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. 2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew...

I don't think that there will come a time when every jew converts to Christ. God will not take away their free-will, neither can the conversion of all of them be declared with certainty, since it's their own personal, voluntary, contingent choice.

But Paul says there is a time when such a thing will happen, when all Jews will come to a saving knowledge of Christ. (see Romans 11:11-24) He anticipates a time in which the Jews who have by in large rejected Christ will fully embrace Him. And in doing such, it won't be through some sort of suspended free-will. It will only come after God provokes them to jealousy. And such God promises to do. And even though it will be their own personal choice, it is something that God promises will happen.

Though lengthy, and for those unfamiliar with Art Katz, perhaps you will find it a bit overwhelming... but I highly recommend this two part message by this beloved brother. It is from this past summer's 2006 Prophetical School lectures. In this message Art chews very thoroughly through Romans 11. It's lengthy, but I promise it to be very rich in insight. I've yet to come across a better exposition of this chapter.

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=14173](2006 Prophetic School) Romans 11 - Part 1[/url] | [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=14174]Part 2[/url]

philologos wrote:
[color=0000FF]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 [u]so[/u] 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 11:25-26 KJVS)[/color]

Many read this as though it says 'and THEN...' as if this event follows the previous ones but this is not what the word 'so' means.
The word translated 'so' in the your quotation is important. Does it mean subsequently or consequently? ie does it mean 'then',happening later or does it mean the 'result' is... I think an examination of Pauls use of this word in Romans and in the rest of the NT will make it clear that he does not use it in the sense of 'next event'.
...
Pauls use of 'houtos' meaning 'so' or 'thus' rather than 'then' can be seen in 3779 (thus) Paul's use of ([url=http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3779&Version=kjv]houtOs[/url]) in Romans 1:15,4:18,5:12,15,18-19,21,6:4,11,19,9:20,10:6, 11:5,26,31,12:5,15:20
...
To understand the implications of an "houtOs" we must examine what has already preceded it. An "houtOs" does not add new information, but draws a conclusion from information already previously given. This "houtOs" introduces the conculsion to all that has been said in Ro 9-11, the burden of which is that there is "no difference" between Jew and Gentiles as regards their acceptance with God. Jews would be rejected because of unbelief. Gentiles would be accepted through their faith. If a Jew repents, and believes he will be grafted in again to God's original root. A Gentile who has believed should not be highminded. If he does not continue in God's prescribed way he "also" will be cut off"

Welcome aboard Ron, I was wondering when you'd arrive. :-)

Adding this to Jimmy's comments, regarding the idea of [b]all Israel[/b], referring to a future point of those who remain after the events described in Zechariah, there is still consistency. If Paul's statements here are referring to a future "event", when Gentiles will be (and dare I say "are being") cut out that Israel can be grafted back in, then the word "so" would be placing the statement "all Israel shall be saved" into the context of this theme being discussed immediately before. The "grafting out/grafting in" is the means by which this occurs, and the so brings the clarification of this. If this is the case, then any speculation regarding Caleb is meaningless, because he is not alive now, let alone at that future time. Beside this, there are Gentile who will remain grafted in, after this event of all Israel being saved. Why not include Caleb in this category?

On top of this, consider the entire context of ch 11, which is primarily that of warning Gentiles of not being highminded against the rejected Israelites. Why would this be the case? Could it be that Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, carries a double meaning, in the his "brothers and sisters" are not only those who obey his word, but also Jesus' biological kindred? If this is the case, then expressing our love for one another would serve also as a practice and proof of our future expression of love toward Israel, as they go through their time of Jacob's trouble.

Consider present day Judaic culture, with it's resentment of Christendom for its role in the Crusades and Nazi Holocaust. Could it be that they, in their time of distress will carry this offensiveness into such an ordeal, whilst being sheltered by the very people whom they despise? Consider this also in light of a society that will be, for the most part, "Jew hating" and that the threat of our persecution will be all the more greater than Israel's. Israel's "guilt" will be based only their biology, while ours will be one of choice. Could it, also be that this "costly love", to those which are spewing their hatred at us, could be the very circumstance that provokes Israel to jealousy?

Could this love be possible without the Gentiles being saved? This scenario would mean the establishment of a "symbiotic relationship", where the Gentiles are saved through Israel's fall, so that "this love", which is evidence of these Gentiles being Christ's disciples, can be such a provocation, which leads to Israel experiencing humbling, being the pretext of "all Israel" being saved. (pant-pant)

What better expression of the word's, "...in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For [b]by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast[/b]. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them"? (Eph 2:7-10) After all, neither Jews nor Gentile can claim to have originated such a scenario, where the basis of even our very repentance is "not of ourselves".

This is the plain and literal argument of Paul in Romans 11.

eg.
[color=0000FF]Rom. 3:22 (KJVS) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: [u]for there is no difference[/u]:

Rom. 10:12 (KJVS) [u]For there is no difference[/u] between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [/color]

Paul has not changed the grounds of acceptance with God; faith not descent. The link here is very plain so we must build our understanding of Romans 9-11 on the earlier part of Romans which is the gospel 'to the Jew first and also to the Gentile'.

It's nice to proof-text Scripture to make it say something other than what it says in context.

This is not your usual generous judgment. You must distinguish between interpretation and exegesis.

My objection to this interpretation is that it runs counter to the whole flow of Romans. If we expound Romans 9-11 as a separate unit I could see the legitimacy of the reasoning but if we put Romans 9-11 back into the whole text of Romans we must interpret it in the light of what has gone before.

From a structural standpoint, Romans 9-11 can be taken as a unit. Of course, it is only a slice in the larger piece of the pie. I am not suggesting we interpret it as a separate unit. However at the same time, I am not suggesting we take an idea taught in Romans 4 and contextualize away Paul's usage of Israel in Romans 11. For by the time we get to Romans 11, Paul is much further in his argument than showing the ABC's of justification by faith.

For example, the dual Scriptures you quote of Romans 3:22; 10:12 shows in their contexts that there is indeed no difference to how the Jew or Gentile approaches God and obtains salvation. Both must come by faith. Circumcised or not. All in response to God's word.

But to say Paul recognizes no distinctions between Jew and Gentile in God's historical sovereign purposes and dealings is a mischaracterization of Paul's theology (not to mention the whole of Scripture). (However, these distinctions e.g. separate but distinct purposes as dispensationalists teach is not where I'm going. ) I'll have to deal with these distinctions in a later post though... as I just realized I am almost late for work :-)

(The suspense will kill us all, I know!!!)

philologos wrote:
...if we put Romans 9-11 back into the whole text of Romans we must interpret it in the light of what has gone before.

On the contrary Ron, we are interpreting Rom 9-11 in the context of the whole. From Rom 1-8 we see the charge being laid against humanity, the fact that Israel is not exempt on the grounds of nationality, onto the basis, means and effect of justification, regeneration and adoption. From here 9-11 maps out God's purpose of this salvation, in the context of the mystery of Israel and the church, concluding in the statement "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." The "therefore" is what was communicated in 9-11. It could be said that 9-11 is the purpose for the book of Romans, with 1-8 setting the platform for what is discussed, and 12-15 serving as a logical outcome and ch 16 being a final personal greeting to the receivers.

[color=0000FF]Rom. 3:22 (KJVS) Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: [u]for there is no difference[/u]:

Rom. 10:12 (KJVS) [u]For there is no difference[/u] between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. [/color]

Paul has not changed the grounds of acceptance with God; faith not descent.

No one is suggesting that the grounds of acceptance is not of faith. All of Israel being saved would still be based on faith, but that faith is grounded upon the trustworthiness of God, who will spare His remnant, as promised through the prophets. The "acceptance" comes out of the realisation of the mercy extended to Israel, in spite of it being totally undeserved. The "salvation" is offered in spite of their lack of repentance, but repentance is produced as a result of the godly fear associated with been spared, "yet so as through fire" of the Time of Jacob's Trouble.

The question to be asked could be, "What is [b]this[/b] salvation, which is spoken of?" Could it be that we are taking this word "saved" and applying it eternally, based on our Christian rhetoric? What if this salvation is from the continuance of Jacob's Trouble? What if this salvation refers to Jesus' statement that the tribulation will be cut short of the point of causing none to endure? What is it is this "salvation" which will lead to "all Israel" being saved in an eternal sense? Again, the fact that "all Israel shall be saved" is not based upon Israel's ethnicity, but upon the faithfulness of the God who keeps promises, and has promised to spare a remnant of Israel, period.

Regarding the statements that there being "no difference" between the Jews and the Gentiles, consider the context of Paul's statement regarding Israel's salvation:

[b]24[/b] 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: [u]how much more[/u] shall these, which be the natural [i]branches[/i], be graffed into their own olive tree?
[b]25[/b] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that [u]blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in[/u].
[b]26[/b] 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:
[b]Rom 11:24-26[/b]

There is an undeniable distinction made here, between Israel and the Gentiles. In fact, it is stated that it is more likely that Israel be grafted back in, than the Gaetiles be grafted in, which has already occured. Rom 3:22 is in reference to "righteousness", and Rom 10:22 is in refernce to the impartiallity and generosity of God, responding to those who call upon Him. Neither of these statements are blanket references to salvation, but more references to specific elements of the principle of salvation.

Consider if we were to apply your logic to Gal 3:28:

[b]26[/b] For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
[b]27[/b] For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
[b]28[/b] There is neither Jew nor Greek, [u]there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female[/u]: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
[b]29[/b] And if ye [i]be[/i] Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
[b]4:1[/b] Now I say, [i]That[/i] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
[b]Gal 3:26-4:1[/b]

If there is "neither slave nor free", then why write a letter to Philemon regarding his slave? If "neither male nor female", then why have wives submit to husbands, and why forbid women to teach? In spite of God judging Jew, Greek, slave, free, male and female without bias, each serves a different purpose in God's cosmic drama, being unveiled before the principalities and powers.

Regarding this "mystery" of Israel and the church, Paul warns us that to ignore it is to risk becoming "wise in our own conceits", and to ignore it is to ignore much of the statements of the prophets. Why is it that we continue to ignore it? Considering that understanding this mystery depends much upon our eschatological understanding, which is also ignored, by and large, as irrelevant, is it any wonder that much of the Body of Christ has embraced deception?

This is not your usual generous judgment.

Proof-texting is when one isolates a random assortment of verses divorced from their original contexts, and attempts to use them as the basis for understanding another verse of Scripture, which is also isolated from it's immediate context. This is what I feel Jesse has done in his lacing together a string of Scripture quotations to force Romans 11 to say something other than what Romans 11 actually says.

For the issue regarding Israel that Paul takes up in Romans 11 has to do plainly with the "natural branches" as he calls them. That is, ethnic Jews. To quote a verse to the effect "Not all who are of Israel are Israel" from other parts of Romans, and then to assert that this is what Paul was talking about in Romans 11 is simply bad exegesis. It's to ignore not only the immediate passage under consideration, but also the broader context in which this great passage lies.

So, perhaps I was not as generous as I often am, nor as quick to call something such as this. Perhaps I should have been more gracious, and will aim to be more so. Regardless of this though, Jesse's post was nothing but mere proof-texting.

Forgive me for the choppy nature of my posts, which are rather limited in this thread. I'm only able to squeeze in a moment here and there. Hopefully the Lord will afford me the time to address these things more fully.

I'd like to offer some thoughts on the "context" of Romans 9-11, and the interpretation that I am attempting to put forward. Indeed, I would argue along the same lines as CJakForest is arguing, that Romans 9-11 is truly the thrust and heart of the entire letter.

Far from being a side issue, Romans 9-11 is central to Paul's argument beginning in Romans 1:16.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, [u]to the Jew first[/u] and also to the Greek.

And why to the Jew first? Because it is to them that:

Romans 9:3 ...[Paul's] kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 [u]who are Israelites, [b]to whom belongs[/b][/u] the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

This is in keeping with what we see reiterated throughout the entire Old Testament:

Amos 3:1 Hear this word which the Lord has spoken against you, sons of Israel, against the entire family which He brought up from the land of Egypt: 2 [u]You only have I chosen among all the families of the earth[/u]; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.

For out of all the families of the earth, God elected one man and his offspring by whom "all the nations of the earth would be blessed." (Gen 12:3) For they alone are the ones whom God entered into covenant with nationally, and they alone are the ones whom God brought out of the land of Egypt. For God has sanctified them and made them distinct based on His eternal purposes.

Such is why Christ went only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and bid His apostles in their early ministry during the days of His first advent to do the same. For as Jesus told the Samaritan woman, salvation is of the Jews. For to them belong all these things. Which is why Jesus during His earthly ministry focused on preaching the gospel to the Jews. For it was to them that the kingdom was to be offered, for it was to them that it was promised.

As the Lord also said, to whom much is given, much shall be required. And such is also why the Old Testament prophets could say that Israel was to pay doubly for their sins, and why the calamities that befell them were so harsh. For God had chosen them alone out of all the families of the earth. And if they were to receive such a great honor, then, failure to be the people God called them to be-- a holy nation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people -- would result in a greater punishment. Which is why Paul could also say:

Romans 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of [u]the Jew first[/u] and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, [u]to the Jew first[/u] and also to the Greek.

And if you notice, most of the verses I have quoted from Romans thus far are still early on in Paul's argument, which builds up to it's culmination, in chapter 11.

...More to come...

On the contrary Ron, we are interpreting Rom 9-11 in the context of the whole. From Rom 1-8 we see the charge being laid against humanity, the fact that Israel is not exempt on the grounds of nationality, onto the basis, means and effect of justification, regeneration and adoption. From here 9-11 maps out God's purpose of this salvation, in the context of the mystery of Israel and the church, concluding in the statement "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." The "therefore" is what was communicated in 9-11. It could be said that 9-11 is the purpose for the book of Romans, with 1-8 setting the platform for what is discussed, and 12-15 serving as a logical outcome and ch 16 being a final personal greeting to the receivers.

[color=0000FF]So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 1:15-16 KJVS)[/color]

It is important to think through the historical context of the epistle. The 'church' at Rome was probably predominantly 'Jewish' in character from its beginnings. However Jews had been expelled from Rome by Claudius somewhere around AD 45?

[color=0000FF]And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. (Acts 18:2 KJVS)[/color]

We can presume that Jewish and 'Jewish' Christians filtered back into Rome but the general composition of the 'church in Rome' would have been affected by this. The history of the 'church in Rome' then was first predominantly Jewish, then almost exclusively Gentile and then predominantly Gentile with some Jewish returnees. There were some 'Jewish' Christians in the 'church in Rome' when Paul wrote his epistle but they would have been a small minority; this would explain Paul's address to the 'Jews' in Rom 2:17ff.

So I see Paul writing to a gathering of the saints who may well have been wondering what the implications were for the ancient people of God, but I doubt that it could really be said that the Romans 1-8 is really only an introduction to Romans 9-11.

philologos wrote:
So I see Paul writing to a gathering of the saints who may well have been wondering what the implications were for the ancient people of God, but I doubt that it could really be said that the Romans 1-8 is really only an introduction to Romans 9-11.

I am not implying that the [b]only[/b] purpose of Romans is 9-11, but that the purpose of the Gentiles redemption (which makes up the major component of the content of Romans) is contained in 9-11. Romans purpose is to lay out the pretext, basis and means of the Gentiles' redemption, which is not by any means different than that of the Jews, namely through faith in Christ alone. What I am saying is the Rom 9-11 shows the purpose of the the Gentiles actual redemption, therefore it is the "purpose of the purpose", making it the primary concern.

Ray Comfort applies a similar logic when explaining why he gives much emphasis on the Law in evangelism, by comparing to the doctor, who having spent much time explaining the disease, only needs to briefly mention the cure. Roman 1-8 goes to great lengths to break apart any notion that neither Jew nor Gentile can claim to take comfort in their ethnicities' preference in the sight of God, within the context of His offer of grace, so that 9-11 can go on to explain the symbiotic relationship between the Jew and the Greek, without any bias.

Regarding historical context, I believe Parkyns, in his church history series, pointed out the fact that Acts clearly states that there were many priests and Levites who came to faith in Jerusalem, but then as the apostles emphasised the corruption of the Jewish faith, more and more, they began to oppose the gospel. And God allowed this to occur in order to get the believers to obey His commandment to go to the world with the gospel.

Paul's ministry, prior to Athens, in the light of what Romans teaches, could be summarised as such:
1) Enter town
2) Preach Gospel to Jews
3) Jews reject gospel (cut out of the vine)
4) Preach to the Gentiles (grafted in)
5) Jews stir up mob against Paul
The only exemption to this, of note, was Berea, where the Jews from Thessolonica caught wind of what was going on and then came to raise up their own mob. Consider how King Saul's handling of his rejection by God, and it's effect on his behaviour toward David, who was "grated" into his role as king, so to speak, serves as allegory of Israel's handling of being cut out. Consider, also how Paul's own life serves as a type of Israel's restoration, coming from such a severe persecutory mind, to being the very means of deliverance of the gospel to the Gentiles (the Law going forth out of Zion, after the nation is "born in a day").

Whether or not the Roman church was predominately Jewish, or not is irrelevant. If Paul is laying forth a principle, of Israel being cut off, so that Gentiles can be grafted in, but that Gentiles can be cut out, that Israel can be grafted in with greater ease, and this principle serves to point toward a future Time of Jacob's Trouble, then it would make no difference. The message is conveyed so that both Jew and Gentile will understand their own role, in context with the others'.

Regarding historical context, I believe Parkyns, in his church history series, pointed out the fact that Acts clearly states that there were many priests and Levites who came to faith in Jerusalem, but then as the apostles emphasised the corruption of the Jewish faith, more and more, they began to oppose the gospel. And God allowed this to occur in order to get the believers to obey His commandment to go to the world with the gospel.

I didn't want to widen the topic too much but I think that we have to in order to understand the overall context.

On occasion our Lord referred to the Temple as 'His Father's House' but on a fateful day he seemed to see things differently...
[color=0000FF]Matt. 23:38 (KJVS) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

Luke 13:35 (KJVS) Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. [/color]

It seems as if he had abandoned the whole system to them. and what are we to make of the statement...

[color=0000FF]Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Matthew 21:43 KJVS)[/color]

edit:11 June 2007. You will notice that Matt 21 comes before Matthew 23. This seems to indicate that Matt 23 is the judgment that was threatened in Matt 21.

There are some comments that have been made that have me shaking my head in utter dismay:

philologos wrote:
Are you blaming Jewish rejection of the gospel on the apostles?

dorcas wrote:
It seems to me that you are ignoring what God said to Eve, as if there was no promise of gentile salvation before Jews ever existed.

Compliments wrote:
This is a wearisome thread. I know that there is a "preferring the Jews over the Church" thinking in our midst. I know people that will bend over backwards to help a Jew but at the same time tripping over 'gentiles'.

Ron, I am particularly shocked that you would make such a statement, considering that you personally know Parkyns (if he is still alive), and have no doubt heard his series on Church History. He made these observations, all the while making cracks about the pigheadedness of the apostles, who remained in Jerusalem, rather than "go into all the world.." I am not blaming anyone for the Jewish rejection of the gospel, but the Jews who rejected the gospel, period. This neither adds nor removes from the fact that it was prophesied by the prophets, and further ratified by Jesus and Paul. If anyone is to be accused, apart from the rejecting Jews, it would have to be God, who chastens those He loves.

Linn, I am one who firmly believes that the gospel in contained within every statement of Scripture, going right back to creation. Paul clearly stated that the promise preceded the Law, and logic would add, Israel itself. In spite of this, Israel has played its part in the gospel narrative. Consider the fact that if Rahab wasn't spared, in her deal with the Israelite spies, there would be a missing link in Jesus' lineage. And this is but one example.

What God said to Eve was that Christ (Eve's seed) would come and vanquish the seed of the serpent (Satan/sin), which will involve the serpents seed striking at his heel. How does that add or remove from anything I have said?

Compliments, your comment which I have quoted, is both out of line, and bordering on slander. I for one show no favouritism in the kindness that I offer to humanity. I have not sought to take away for assisting Gentiles who are in distress, in order to help Israel through their coming time of trouble. Would you have leveled a similar accusation toward Corrie Ten Boom, for what she did for Israelites during WW2?

Simply put, we have a mystery of which ignorance risks causing us to become wise in our own conceits.

I am not suggesting that Israel has some kind of "special privileges", but the they were chosen for a purpose, and that ultimate purpose is as a sign for all humanity, principality and power can behold. All these accusations that have been made, of there being a "different classes" is ludicrous. Consider it being more a matter of being a focal point, than being privileged.

Even if we take these two statements (and there are many more):

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

Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or [u]shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children[/u].
[b]Is 66:8[/b]

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

Regarding:

Even so then at this present time also [u]there is a remnant according to the election of grace[/u].
[b]Rom 11:5[/b]

Again I insist that I am not implying that God has granted special privileges to Israel, but rather that His choosing them to be a "peculiar people" has not been revoked. Read the prophets, and note how many times that God says that He will totally reject Israel, and then go on to say that He will not totally reject Israel, because He will spare a remnant. Which is it? Totally reject, not totally reject?

Regarding the "Gentiles joining the Jews", what of the passage that Annie put forward (which I have already commented on):

[b]24[/b] For if thou wert cut out of the [u]olive tree which is wild by nature[/u], and wert grafted contrary to nature into a [u]good olive tree[/u]: how much more shall [u]these, which be the natural [i]branches[/i], be grafted into their own olive tree[/u]?
[b]25[/b] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of [u]this mystery[/u], 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.
[b]Rom 11:24-25[/b]

Regarding the "proof texts" that Compliments put forward, Eph 2:14 did break the middle wall of partition, expressed in the fact that Israel is showed no favouritism and has some branches cut off, and Gentile has some branches grafted in. Just as Gentiles like Caleb, Rahab, and Ruth, for example, were grated under the old covenant, so too are Gentiles being grafted in, on much larger scale, under the new. Rom 10:12 has already been addressed, in an earlier post (2007/6/10 1:14), Rom 2:29 could be read to mean that the Jew that isn't one inwardly, shouldn't be considered one. It appears to be challenging the confidence that Jews place in their adherence of the Law, particularly that of outward circumcision, not referring to Gentiles at all.

Compliments wrote:
This is grieving the Spirit of God by our bias interpretation of the scriptures, favouring races over the body of Christ is not right, we are dividing the body of Christ.

Considering the unexpected responses to I have received for my posts in this thread, I am lead to concluded that either I have embraced "a great deception", as Compliments (ironic handle in light of the comment that has been made) has suggested, or a nerve is being struck, which unveils a deep deception. If Art Katz is right about his observations of there being a latent anti-semitism within the Gentiles, then the comments here would be completely understandable.

Dear Ones:

Since it says 2/3rds will perish (from the assault of the Anti-Christ if I remember correctly) and since Paul says "all will be saved," wouldn't that simply mean that the remaining 1/3rd are the whole of the "all" who will be saved?

Just my 2 cents worth.

Ron, I am particularly shocked that you would make such a statement, considering that you personally know Parkyns (if he is still alive), and have no doubt heard his series on Church History. He made these observations, all the while making cracks about the pigheadedness of the apostles, who remained in Jerusalem, rather than "go into all the world.." I am not blaming anyone for the Jewish rejection of the gospel, but the Jews who rejected the gospel, period. This neither adds nor removes from the fact that it was prophesied by the prophets, and further ratified by Jesus and Paul. If anyone is to be accused, apart from the rejecting Jews, it would have to be God, who chastens those He loves.

Edgar is long gone to his reward and rest but while he was here I discussed some of his opinions with him during a stay in my home. I said then, and repeat, now 'when I have been half as faithful and successful as the apostles I am going to start criticising them, but until then I am going to keep my mouth shut'.

This is not only Edgar but was/is the view of many dispensationalists. I reject it.

If Art Katz is right about his observations of there being a latent anti-semitism within the Gentiles, then the comments here would be completely understandable.

dorcas wrote:
'... comparisons between "Israel" and "Jacob", who was both one and the same "character", although both names represent two very different kinds of "people".'

This could be written '... "Israel" and "Jacob", who was both one and the same "person", although both names represent two very different kinds of "character".'

I see why you have said this, but I meant "character" is in Jacob/Israel are one in the same Biblical character, just as Abraham was a character, and Jesus was a character. I mean character as in a person written about in the Book, not character as in nature. By "people" I was referring to a distinction in "people groups", as though God almost considered them to be divided ethnically. Having said all that, I like the way you put it. Much less room for misinterpretation.

After much prayerful consideration, I have decided to bow out of this discussion, and offer my apologies toward my fellow participants, particularly for comments made in my last post. My heart was definitely in the wrong place, when I was posting, and as a result allowed my frustration about having difficulty communicating what I am trying to say, without having unintended connotations attached, due to poorly chosen wordings (see above example).

I am not in any way retracting my view that Romans 9-11 points toward a mystery that touches upon a future Time of Jacob's Trouble. However, until I have found the efficiency of words to discuss it adequately, I'll be leaving it for more "real time" discussions, which can be clarified on the fly.

Again, my apologies to Ron, Linn and Compliments (whatever your real name is:-)), particularly, as you were the main recipients of my frustrated rantings. Thank you for your patience with me.

Again, my apologies to Ron, Linn and Compliments (whatever your real name is), particularly, as you were the main recipients of my frustrated rantings. Thank you for your patience with me.

However, (not to do with apologies) I want to make an observation... I am alarmed at the passions that this topic always seems to arouse. We might say, well let's not talk about it and that would avoid the passions but I am truly perplexed as to why this topic arouses such passionate feelings.

I have friends that I can talk to about anything... except this topic. I have received more forum abuse over this topic than any other. The abuse does not over-trouble me but it certainly perplexes me. :-?

I am going to attempt to pickup where I left off at last, in examining the larger context of Romans 9-11 in Paul's ever developing argument. Forgive me if I skip over much discussion that has gone on since then.

As As stated previously, I don't look at Romans 9-11 as a sort of appendix to what was covered in the chapters leading up to it. Rather, I see it as the goal towards which Paul is heading from his opening argument.

To survey in a very general manner, the structure of Romans is pretty simple:

Romans 1-11: Theological Argument
Romans 12-15: Practical Exhortations

To focus in more on the theological section of Romans, generally speaking, the following I see as the general structure of Paul's argument:

Romans 1-2: Condemnation of All
Romans 3-5: Grounds of Justification
Romans 6-8: Justification Applied
Romans 9-11: Eschatological Linkage

Having given these very basic outlines, I want to attempt to trace the general argument of this letter to the Romans. Scriptures are from the NASB.

[color=0000FF]Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live by faith."[/color]

Paul begins his argument with the above statement which sets the tone for what all that is to follow. In the above statement, we understand that Paul sees a universality to the gospel message. It is for everyone. And it is for everyone because "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Since all have sinned and are condemned to the judgment of God, all men are in need of the salvation that is available through this gospel.

In Romans 1:18-3:20, Paul shows how God is impartial regarding His judgments. For men suppressed the truth of God through their unrighteousness. That which they know about God has been ignored, and men rather turned to vain things, to which God in His judgment, has given mankind over to pursue the corrupt lusts of their hearts.

This is the state of all mankind, whether Jew or Greek. And God will hold each man accountable, whether Jew or Greek. For there is coming a day of judgment in which God will render to each person according to their deeds, according to the light they had. The Gentile, who doesn't have the Law in written form, still has a general revelation of God and His requirements, as revealed in nature and his conscience. Even though he has an imperfect knowledge of God, he still must give an account. Likewise the Jew, who has God's revealed Law will have to give an account for his sinful deeds in light of God's prescribed Law.

All men will be judged. However, there is a false confidence men have that they can somehow get off the hook and escape this judgment by who they are and what they have done. Some will boast of their Jewishness, and rely upon the Law to have such confidence before God (2:17-20).

Paul will have none of that. For if if such is going to be the grounds of your confidence before God, then what are you going to do with all those commandments you have broken at some time in your life? What value will the circumcision you have in your flesh be when God judges you as a breaker of His commandments? The circumcision you have will be rendered null and void if you are found to be a transgressor of the Law. In fact, to be a transgressor of God's Law is tantamount to being uncircumcised. (2:21-26)

Therefore, the only type of Judaism and circumcision that will profit a man on the day of judgment is a Judaism and circumcision that is not outward and fleshly, but one that is inward and spiritual. This goes whether one is a Jew or a Greek. For there is no partiality with God. (2:28-29)

At this point in Paul's argument, he anticipates that his reader has a question formulating in his mind regarding the Jewish people. If there is indeed tribulation and distress for the soul who does evil, of the Jew first and also the Greek (2:9), and God is indeed impartial, then, [color=0000FF]"What advantage has the Jew?"[/color]

Many of you here would probably assert, "None!" But this is not Paul says. To Paul, there is an advantage and distinction God does remake regarding the Jew. As I pointed out in a previous post, but will rehash again, God does make a distinction in regard to the ethnic Jewish people, and seeing them as having an advantage that we as Gentiles do not have. For as Romans 1:16 says, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, [color=0000FF]"[u]to the Jew first[/u] and also to the Greek."[/color] This isn't just a matter of chronology in regard to historical order.

For as Paul goes on to answer his own question. Far from being of no distinction, Paul says, their advantage is [color=0000FF]"Great in every respect!" (3:2)[/color] First of all, Paul says, they were entrusted with the oracles of God. (3:2) Then additional advantages and distinctions as being theirs, Paul further enumerates later in his argument that to the Jews belong, [color=0000FF]"the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh." (Romans 9:4-5)[/color]

However, as great and precious as these many advantages and distinctions are for the Jewish people, [color=0000FF]"...both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one.'" (Romans 3:9-10)[/color] So, in spite of all these advantages, Paul brings his readers back to square one. That as is to say, even though the Jewish people have a great many advantages and things that make them distinct from the Gentiles, when it comes to the day of judgment, none of these things will profit them. For there is no partiality with God; He will render each man according to his deeds. And [color=0000FF]"by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight." (3:20)[/color]

Therefore, the only hope of obtaining a right relationship with God, comes not through being Jewish and keeping the Law, but can only come only by the gift of Jesus Christ on the basis of faith. For since all have sinned, no amount of good works and Law-keeping will undo the crimes for which one is guilty before in the sight of God (3:21-34). For far from being the God of the Jews alone, God is the God of both Jew and Gentile, of the one who is circumcised and the one who is uncircumcised, all on the basis of faith.

[u][b]For this, there is no distinction.[/b][/u]

And Paul goes on to show this by taking two examples from the Old Testament to make his point. In Romans 4, he uses Abraham, who was uncircumcised and living before the Mosaic-Law was instituted, and David, who was circumcised and lived after the handing down of the Law. Both men, Paul argues, were made righteous by God simply on the basis of faith. Their works of the Law, namely, being circumcised, had nothing to do with their right standing before God. For Abraham was made righteous before circumcision was even commanded. And in David's situation, he showed that he was not depending upon the Law to make him right with God after he had sinned, rather, he was relying upon the grace of God to forgive him and put him in good standing with God. (4:1-8)

.... I will continue on with my argument regarding Romans 9-11 and it's place in Paul's argument in another future posts .....

Compliments wrote:

For me, it's the abomination of the thought that God would make a distinction between the Jew and the Gentile in these so called last days, after He spoke thru Paul saying there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, that all are one in Christ Jesus our LORD.

I believe Scripture points out that this is not true.

First, we forget what Scripture says as to who is responsible for the plan in the last days. Scripture states that God will cause those whom He has chosen to return to Zion.

Zec 8:1 Again the word of the LORD of hosts came [to me], saying,
Zec 8:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; I was jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I was jealous for her with great fury.
Zec 8:3 Thus saith the LORD; I am returned unto Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and Jerusalem shall be called a city of truth; and the mountain of the LORD of hosts the holy mountain.
Zec 8:4 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; There shall yet old men and old women dwell in the streets of Jerusalem, and every man with his staff in his hand for very age.
Zec 8:5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in the streets thereof.
Zec 8:6 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If it be marvellous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in these days, should it also be marvellous in mine eyes? saith the LORD of hosts.
Zec 8:7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country;
Zec 8:8 And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.

It is the Lord's plan not ours. Scripture states that He "will save His people", He will "bring them from the east country, and from the west country."

There are many Scriptures which speak to this work that He will do...

In Christ
Jeff

We often point to this section of Scripture when speaking of the doctrine of predestination...yet in this particular thread it seems that some have problems with what Paul is teaching...

Rom 9:11 (For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

Isa 66:1 Thus saith the LORD, The heaven [is] my throne, and the earth [is] my footstool: where [is] the house that ye build unto me? and where [is] the place of my rest?
Isa 66:2 For all those [things] hath mine hand made, and all those [things] have been, saith the LORD: but to this [man] will I look, [even] to [him that is] poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

Isa 66:5 Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.
Isa 66:6 A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of the LORD that rendereth recompence to his enemies.
Isa 66:7 Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.
Isa 66:8 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? [or] shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith the LORD: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut [the womb]? saith thy God.
Isa 66:10 Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her:
Isa 66:11 That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.
Isa 66:12 For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the Gentiles like a flowing stream: then shall ye suck, ye shall be borne upon [her] sides, and be dandled upon [her] knees.
Isa 66:13 As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
Isa 66:14 And when ye see [this], your heart shall rejoice, and your bones shall flourish like an herb: and the hand of the LORD shall be known toward his servants, and [his] indignation toward his enemies.

Isa 66:20 And they shall bring all your brethren [for] an offering unto the LORD out of all nations upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the LORD, as the children of Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the LORD.
Isa 66:21 And I will also take of them for priests [and] for Levites, saith the LORD.
Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, [that] from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

The Lord will prepare His vessel, He will clean His vessel, He will complete His word.

In Christ
Jeff

Compliments,

I'm not exactly sure where you are disagreeing with me? Indeed, the gospel is certainly to the Jew first. Perhaps you meant something else??

Again thanks, you got my attention, I look forward to your next exposition.

I hope to bring my next exposition in a day or two, as I have a pretty busy schedule. And even such a short but serious exposition is quite the labor. So, be patient with me :)

Another thought concerning this thread...

Psa 71:22 I will also praise thee with the psaltery, [even] thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.

Psa 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

Psa 89:18 For the LORD [is] our defence; and the Holy One of Israel [is] our king.
Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon [one that is] mighty; I have exalted [one] chosen out of the people.

Isa 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day;
Isa 10:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.

Isa 12:6 Cry out and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion: for great [is] the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.

Isa 17:7 At that day shall a man look to his Maker, and his eyes shall have respect to the Holy One of Israel.

Who according to Scripture is the "Holy One?"

Who lead Israel in the OT?

Who will lead Israel in the future?

In Christ
Jeff

KingJimmy on 2007/6/12 21:12:50

What value will the circumcision you have in your flesh be when God judges you as a breaker of His commandments? The circumcision you have will be rendered null and void if you are found to be a transgressor of the Law. In fact, to be a transgressor of God's Law is tantamount to being uncircumcised. (2:21-26)

Therefore, the only type of Judaism and circumcision that will profit a man on the day of judgment is a Judaism and circumcision that is not outward and fleshly, but one that is inward and spiritual. This goes whether one is a Jew or a Greek. For there is no partiality with God. (2:28-29)

At this point in Paul's argument, he anticipates that his reader has a question formulating in his mind regarding the Jewish people. If there is indeed tribulation and distress for the soul who does evil, of the Jew first and also the Greek (2:9), and God is indeed impartial, then, "What advantage has the Jew?"

Many of you here would probably assert, "None!" But this is not Paul says. To Paul, there is an advantage and distinction God does remake regarding the Jew. As I pointed out in a previous post, but will rehash again, God does make a distinction in regard to the ethnic Jewish people, and seeing them as having an advantage that we as Gentiles do not have. For as Romans 1:16 says, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, "to the Jew first and also to the Greek." This isn't just a matter of chronology in regard to historical order.

For as Paul goes on to answer his own question. Far from being of no distinction, Paul says, their advantage is "Great in every respect!" (3:2) First of all, Paul says, they were entrusted with the oracles of God. (3:2) Then additional advantages and distinctions as being theirs, Paul further enumerates later in his argument that to the Jews belong, "the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh." (Romans 9:4-5)

This was, indeed, their greatest treasure. It is significant that Paul does not include the covenants at this point. (I will address the Covenants subsequently) A 'Jew' would have thought that the Covenant with its Sinai Law and Priesthood was the 'greatest' treasure entrusted to them but not so Paul. Their greatest treasure became their greatest tragedy; [color=0000FF]And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. (John 5:38-40 KJVS)[/color] Their greatest treasure became their greatest indictment.

Now for the Covenants. There is a substantial gap between Paul's reference to the 'oracles of God' in Rom 3:2 and his reference to the 'Covenants' in Rom 9:4. The Romans 9:4 is interesting in that Paul doesn't use a verb at all but simply a preposition [color=0000FF]...who are Israelites, whose [is] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the lawgiving, and the service, and the promises, whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5 YNG)[/color] The square brackets in Young's Literal translation here showing that the verb has been supplied by the translator rather than being present in Paul's original. He says they 'are' Israelites' but does this list still 'pertain' to them or is it, as with the oracles of God, an historic statement rather than a present possession?

If we make it a present possession how are we to understand their 'service' which your NASB further clarifies as 'temple service'? [color=0000FF]who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the {temple} service and the promises, (Romans 9:4 NASB)[/color]

This surely is an historic reference and not a present possession? Is it not significant that in Romans 12 Paul makes this 'service' the present possession and responsibility of every believer? [color=0000FF]Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, {which is} your spiritual service of worship. (Romans 12:1 NASB)[/color]

In this very list are some things that have 'passed away'. The 'glory' is no longer in Jerusalem but in the saints. Sonship is the inheritance of all believers irrespective of ethnic origin. The covenants, plural, have either passed away or are in abeyance depending on your view. The Sinai law is no longer operational. The 'temple' service is long gone and is now the prerogative of a new priesthood. The promises? Again this will depend on one's view of things. However, the clear majority of the items in this list are historical and not present possessions of descendants of Abraham.

And Paul goes on to show this by taking two examples from the Old Testament to make his point. In Romans 4, he uses Abraham, who was uncircumcised and living before the Mosaic-Law was instituted, and David, who was circumcised and lived after the handing down of the Law. Both men, Paul argues, were made righteous by God simply on the basis of faith. Their works of the Law, namely, being circumcised, had nothing to do with their right standing before God. For Abraham was made righteous before circumcision was even commanded. And in David's situation, he showed that he was not depending upon the Law to make him right with God after he had sinned, rather, he was relying upon the grace of God to forgive him and put him in good standing with God. (4:1-8)

In fact, in their rejection of the New Testament, orthodox Judaism no longer has the living 'oracles of God' but only an historical archive which is no longer sufficient as the word of God

And if I might add that archive is being viewed through the distorted lense of the Talmud and Mishna. Moreover, the Rabbi's have userped the authoirty of God and reserve the right to tell individuals just what the passage means. One comment that I heard among the Messianics really strikes me- and it is that of Rabbinic Judaisms parallel to the Catholic church in the way in which authority is put in the hands of men. It always boils down to [u]authority[/u]. Who is in authority? God or mere men?

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself [i]of twain one new man[/i], so making peace; (Eph. 2:15)

This is yet one more passage that, to me, demonstrates that God only ever desired to have one elected people. All the arguments about predestination, in my mind, are solved in understanding this. God always wanted the Gentiles and [i]made provision[/i] for the Gentiles to be part of His people. What I read in Romans is that there is a people that does what a literal circumcised Jew does and is not circumcised and his uncircumcision is made circumcision because of it. Same if the Jew turns away from God his circumcision is made uncircumcision.

The whole point of making an 'Israel' was to provoke the rest of the world to jealousy. Ever sit one of you children on your lap and then they get down and you set a strangers child on your lap? See how FAST your child runs back and wants to sit there also or even push the other child off. God wanted both to sit on His lap and I believe He used this facet of human nature to pull it off. It was not fail safe- but it is quite effective. There was never a point when God would not allow both to sit there so long as both were willing to 'mind' Him on His lap. When one acted out they got sat down. But this is always on an individual basis.

Thank you Ron.

philologos wrote:
I am truly perplexed as to why this topic arouses such passionate feelings.

I can't speak for others, but I know that anger is my "thorn in the flesh", and the primary catalyst is the frustration that comes from perceived misunderstanding. When people say back what they heard, and it is contrary to my intention, one who is pendantic about details as me, is bound to be heading for trouble. We could be discussing "the best way to butter toast" and have the same result. Usually I tend to wait until my footing is a bit firmer before entering into a discussion of a controversial nature.In fact, I had earlier declined to clarify a statement that I made about this issue, in the "Replacement Theology" thread.

It has been a source of bewilderment for me to disagree with you on this issue, to the degree that we do, considering that I have greatly benefited from your teachings. I guess this is living proof of the existance of "apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers", considering that is would be impossible to say that we have been brought to the "fullness of the stature of Christ" with such an inconsistency present.:-)

dorcas wrote:

... my apologies to ... Linn ... Thank you for your patience with me.

I should thank you for your patience with me, also. :-D

You're welcome :-)

...one of the reasons we are all here, is to reflect back to one another what we have successfully communicated. What comes back sometimes, is not what we thought we said! :-o So I'm sorry you felt frustrated but I'm sure you're not alone!

I was finding that my responses were becoming longer and longer, as a result of trying to answer many comments made. Time is such a premium, at the moment, as is emotional investment, and this has been taking much of both.

I'll enjoy watching from the sidelines, and perhaps throw in a little "amen" here and there, and request clarification the odd post.

In "real world" discussions of such a controversial nature, I often find myself passing on sermons that articulate what I have been trying to say, with far greater clarity and unction than I. I guess I'll be taking advantage of Jimmy's eloquence and insight, as he patiently expounds verse upon verse.

It hasn't been the first time we have disagreed on a matter, and I'm sure it won't be the last, however I remain appreciate such varying views on the Texts, in order to gain greater perspective.

Compliments wrote:
And I 'only' use scriptures to interpret scriptures.

I once heard David Pawson say that most evangelicals read the Bible with the Reformers' glasses on. While it sounds impressive to say that we interperate Scripture using "only" Scripture, the fact is the personal opinions about what the Scriptures say will alwayu have a way of creeping in, and the moment we doubt this, we should be all the more wary of potential deception.

Simply put, it is tempting to forget that the Pauline epistles were written by a man of rabbinical training, and therefore was obviously well versed in the Old Testament Scriptures. In order to fully understand the subtle nuances of what is being said, one must have a relative understanding of them too. Sure we can extract an understanding of soteriology, for example, without such a depth of understanding, but there is so much more than this to the mysteries spoken of. I was truly humbled by watching Leonard Ravenhill's "Man of God" interview, and hearing him speak of reading about Noah, and feeling as if he had been reading the Bible with his eyes closed, up until then. Up until that point, he had been believer for over sixty years.

I am also reminded of Tozer's statement, found in the Revival Hymn:

He that is from above is above all.
I want to say dear Christians don't go around apologizing for Him.
Don't go around worried because you can't make His doctrines fit in with what you learned in school.
All you learned in school was [b]one fallen head instructing another fallen head[/b].
And you don't have to apologize for Him.

It has been a source of bewilderment for me to disagree with you on this issue, to the degree that we do, considering that I have greatly benefited from your teachings.

To put it all very bluntly, and this is not to provoke you, I regard the true church + the true remnant of ancient Israel as the 'Israel of God'. As regards a future destiny for the people we call Jews I don't know; it isn't that I have an alternative view its just that I remain unconvinced by all the positions held by so many. I will not say "God has finished with them" because I just don't know. When some lay out their positions which are often reworkings of the Scofield position that I held for so long, I just have to say 'well, I remain unconvinced'.

I was really remarking on the fact that although I have many friends with whom I have differences of opinion on many issues those issues never affect our heart fellowship. However, there are brethren that I have 'lost' because I questioned their views on Israel. We have no more fellowship and if we bump into each other there is always an unspoken embarrassment. I have differences of opinion with brethren on church patterns and ministry functions and election and regeneration and sanctification and baptism in the Spirit and these differences never have an effect on our fellowship, but Israel... :-o

Ron's: I have differences of opinion with brethren on church patterns and ministry functions and election and regeneration and sanctification and baptism in the Spirit and these differences never have an effect on our fellowship, but Israel..

I was in class once and a gal got heated because she told the instructor that she 'loved the Jews' and that she was raised to 'love the Jews' and he replied that she did [u]not[/u] love the Jews. His answer always gripped me- he said, "You're in love with the [i]idea[/i] of the Jews." He explained to her that she had her own preconceived ideas of who the Jews are and if she saw a real Jew and had to intereact with them her grandios ideas may change (just a general summary of his point). The woman walked out of the school and never came back.

There is a great sensitivity in many Christians about how the present their position in defending or 'loving' the Jews. Almost as if to say that if we (they) don't love the Jews- we (they) don't love God. This is why at some point my focus left off of all the Zionist arguments and I became preoccupied with why it is that there were many Jews that believed in the New Testament era- but so few today.

As regards a future destiny for the people we call Jews I don't know...

Their only hope is to turn to Jesus Christ. I simply have no reason to think God would suddenly change the requirements for salvation for the Jews. They must accept the Gospel or reject it. This is why I get troubled by the notion that somehow God is going to save them apart from the Gospel.

As a little anecdote it is good for folk to realize tha Messianic Jews have been banned from Aliyah (Right to return) and some have actually been deported for professing faith in Christ. How do we reckon with such hostility from a Gospel perspective? Jews are not considered Jews any longer if they profess Christ. No matter who a person is they have to come through the door or they are a thief and a robber. Jesus told this to the Jews directly.

Another challenging thought as it pertains to the Jews is that some believe that if persecution is bad enough and the Church is really walking in New Testament Apostolic Christianity then the Jews will see it and turn to Christ. The challenge there is knowing NT history pre 135AD. The Jews were under enormous peril and saw the New Testament Church first hand- many of which we said to be FULL of the Holy Ghost. Healings, deliverance, etc., and still many rejected Christ. They saw the whole of Jerusalem destroyed and the Temple Mount plowed like a farmers field. They saw martyrs faithful to death, etc. Will we top that in these last days so that the Jews see it and turn to Christ?

Brother Robert wrote:

And if I might add that archive is being viewed through the distorted lense of the Talmud and Mishna. Moreover, the Rabbi's have userped the authoirty of God and reserve the right to tell individuals just what the passage means. One comment that I heard among the Messianics really strikes me- and it is that of Rabbinic Judaisms parallel to the Catholic church in the way in which authority is put in the hands of men. It always boils down to authority. Who is in authority? God or mere men?

Paul said the same thing in Romans 10:

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.

Paul declares that their zeal for God was without knowledge. They were "ignorant of God's righteousness" and instead went "about to establish their own righteousness."

And why did this happen?

They "have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

Now we know that Abraham submitted himself to the righteousness of God, so I ask

What was missing?

In Christ
Jeff

Sister Lynn wrote:

In my reading of Hebrews 8, I came across this today:

8 Because finding fault with them [Israel], He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah --
9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,

Have you ever considered this section in Scripture found in Ezekiel 20

Please take note to the sequence of events or covenants spoken of in this Scripture...

First, God spoke His covenant with Israel while they were living in Egypt. Scripture declares that God said to them...

"In the day when I chose Israel, and lifted up mine hand unto the seed of the house of Jacob, and made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt, when I lifted up mine hand unto them, saying, I [am] the LORD your God;"

Do you see here a resemblance to the same covenant that God made with Abraham? He made Himself known to Israel while they still lived in Egypt. He 'lifted up' His "hand unto them, saying, I [am] the Lord YOUR God."

Next, look what is said in Scripture...

Eze 20:7 Then said I unto them, Cast ye away every man the abominations of his eyes, and defile not yourselves with the idols of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.

Do you hear what God wanted for His people?

Next what do we find in Scripture...

Eze 20:8 But they rebelled against me, and would not hearken unto me: they did not every man cast away the abominations of their eyes, neither did they forsake the idols of Egypt: then I said, I will pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my anger against them in the midst of the land of Egypt.

They rebelled while still in Egypt. They did not do as Abraham did. They did not obey His voice...

Eze 20:9 But I wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they [were], in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.

Here Scripture states that God decided not to "pour out His anger on them" so for "my name's sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen" who was Egypt.

Then what does Scripture say?

Eze 20:10 ¶ Wherefore I caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness.

Eze 20:11 And I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which [if] a man do, he shall even live in them

Now God brings them out of Egypt and then He gives them the Law of Mount Sinai.

Do you see what Scripture is teaching us here?

IN Christ
Jeff

Sis wrote:

Brother, the only thing missing is the rest of Paul's discussion.

Rom 10:4 For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth

Jesus was the High Priest for Abraham, He was the "Holy One" who Scripture speaks of...

Psalm 71:22 I will also praise thee with the psaltery, [even] thy truth, O my God: unto thee will I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.

Psa 78:41 Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

Psa 89:18 For the LORD [is] our defence; and the Holy One of Israel [is] our king.

Job knew who His Lord was...

Job 19:23 ¶ Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book!

Job 19:24 That they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock for ever!

Job 19:25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:

Job 19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed within me.

Listen to the words of Jesus...

Jhn 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw [it], and was glad.

God Bless
Jeff

Brother Robert wrote:

Their only hope is to turn to Jesus Christ

All of Scripture declares this...for everything that was made was made through Christ. The only hope Israel had in Egypt was Christ. The only hope that Israel had in the wilderness was Christ.

Remember what Paul teaches...

1Cr 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.

They all heard the gospel...but what does Scripture say?

Hbr 4:2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].

Faith in Christ is taught throughtout the entire Scriptures.

What do you say?

In Christ
jeff

Faith in Christ is taught throughtout the entire Scriptures.

What do you say?

One of the hard lessons I learned as I studied with the Messianic Jews is that they do not hold the grandios views of the future eschatological promises to Israel in the way that many of the non-Jew's do. I know that is a hard pill to swallow, but I watched it over and over again. It seemed that to them many folk (especially Dispensationalists) believe in a [u]future[/u] salvation of the Jews that ignores the pressing present need. Jewish souls are dying and going to hell every day (just like the Gentiles) while many Christians just look to the future and support Israel as a nation state as if that is supposed to take the place of evangelism or something. Just keeping it real here as that's what they would likely tell you.

I have sat by and watched many people come into our classes get shredded and leave dejected because they had this notion that they 'loved' the Jews and that God is going to have the last word, etc. etc. They would smile and tell how much God loves the Jews and all the promises, etc. and I would cringe and duck as I knew a firestorm was coming. And it always did. It lightened up over time because so many people were leaving offended. Maybe not consciously- but it appeared that way.

A common retort for this approach was given by way of illustration. An Israeli soldier is in a trench and a Christian shows up. The Christian says- there is no need to fear because God will save Israel because you are His chosen people, etc. etc. The soldier replies, "That's all fine and good, but will you pass the ammunition!"

Any person that dies without faith in Jesus Christ to the extent of their knowledge is lost. In other words, I do not believe God is going to save a single Jew that has rejected Jesus Christ just because he/she holds to the truth of the Old Testament. We have a lot more light since the Old Testament. Hebrews is a terrible warning against turning from Jesus Christ. Galatians tells us that if we preach another Gospel we are anathema maranathama (cursed).

2 Cor 10:3-6
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:

4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, [u]but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds[/u];)

5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

6 And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

Again, I believe one of the main objectives of all my classes was to dispel the notion that the Jews salvation lies in the future. To shake Christians from complacency. To teach us the issues (which are very involved). To show us Jewish perspective of things. To show us that many of the passages we pull out as proof texts they have long sense been taught to rebut. To teach us the history of the relations between the Jews and the Church that Christians usually know little of- but the average practicing Jew is able to spout off like a nursery rhyme or something. This, to me, is where evangelism requires that we do a lot of study and be ready to give an answer if any man (even the Jews) ask us a reason for the hope that lies within us..., etc.

Enough for one post...

Grannie's: Not meaning to get more into this, but just wanting to bring out that in the O.T. there are so many mentions of His future promises to draw them back unto Himself, I couldn't post them all.

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?

[u]and[/u] how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?

[u]and[/u] how shall they hear without a preacher?

[u]And[/u] how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:15-17)

Paul then goes on to tell us that not all believed- but a remnant believed. This was true in his day and in Elijah's time. God brought salvation to the Gentiles to provoke the Jews to jealousy. Now notice what Paul says here:

If by any means I may provoke to emulation [u]them which are my flesh[/u], and [i]might save some[/i] of them. (Romans 11:14)

The rest of the passages leading up to Romans 12 is a warning and an admonishion that what needs to happen is the salvation of the true Israel. In other words, don't take on the notion that God has forsaken the Jews and does not want to save the remnant. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There were yet some, as Paul once was, locked up in unbelief that could still turn to Christ as Paul did. Do not get the idea that they sould not be preached to or reached as if God has forsaken all. God is still going to save all Israel- that is all that will turn in repentance. This is not some sort of eschatological Jewish universalism teaching. It is a plea to keep reaching the Jews because for each one that is reached and turns to Christ great things happens- even life from the dead. Paul himself is case in point.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There were yet some, as Paul once was, locked up in unbelief that could still turn to Christ as Paul did. Do not get the idea that they sould not be preached to or reached as if God has forsaken all. God is still going to save all Israel- that is all that will turn in repentance. This is not some sort of eschatological Jewish universalism teaching. It is a plea to keep reaching the Jews because for each one that is reached and turns to Christ great things happens- even life from the dead. Paul himself is case in point.

To follow on with this thought:

Another major thrust of my studies dealt with the mistaken notion that all Jews rejected Jesus or that the Jews rejected Jesus. This is a common saying among Christians. It is only true in part. Not all Jews rejected Jesus- the world was evangelized by the Jews. All the disciples were Jews and so was Paul. As the centuries progressed we find that the Church became more and more like the Greeks and this shut things down even more as many Jews rejected Hellenism out of hand. Before we know it (and this is a long story I have written in depth about in the articles section) you hardly find a Jew coming to Christ. The gap between what they saw as a biblical lifestyle and what the Church was doing was too great. Many many other issues... but needless to say we need to ask why so few Jews are coming to Christ in our times as opposed to the New Testament era? Is it because we have just relegated their salvation to the end of the age and take no thought to reach them as we find them today?

If all Isreal is going to be saved it will be because someone was sent and someone preached and someone heard and someone believed and someone repented and someone was born again. I see no sovereign move of God that happens needing no such mechanism for the Jews salvation.

philologos wrote:
To put it all very bluntly, and this is not to provoke you, I regard the true church + the true remnant of ancient Israel as the 'Israel of God'. As regards a future destiny for the people we call Jews I don't know; it isn't that I have an alternative view its just that I remain unconvinced by all the positions held by so many. I will not say "God has finished with them" because I just don't know. When some lay out their positions which are often reworkings of the Scofield position that I held for so long, I just have to say 'well, I remain unconvinced'.

I know you weren't trying to provoke me (having said that, I always getting a little defensive when a work colleague of mine starts a sentence with the words, "No offense, but..." - which usually means that he is about to start fumbling for words to ask me about my "religion...I mean...whatever it is that you call that group of people that believe in God"), but I have to say that we will have to just agree to disagree about your interpretation of the words "Israel of God". Don't worry, we can still be friends, and I'll still be handing out copies of your "Having begun in the Spirit..." series to those I lead to Christ.:-)

Ironically, I tend to lose friends over the issues that you keep them through, but so far, have kept them over disagreements on this issue. The worst criticism I get is, "Would you feel this way if you weren't fellowshipping with Jews?", as if the house church I fellowship with is responsible. Fact is, my association with Messianic believers spawned out of my beliefs regarding Israel, not the other way around.

Hi Annie,

I don't think it's wrong to be a "Jew Lover" as long as you love all men alike. Because as I've said elsewhere, that we don't know 'who' we're talking to, despite their 'current' religion or lack of it.

I have just hoped to share my experience if it may shed some light on things. I hesitate because it is such a volitile topic. Easy to be misunderstood in all this.

I don't think it is wrong either (as you mention above) and the point that my instructor was making is that we, as Christians, are in love with the 'idea' of the Jews rather than the Jews as they really are. He was suggesting that we have somehow concocted an [i]idea[/i] in our minds and called it 'The Jews' (as I understood him).

It is hard to converse with many Jews in real life on the subject of salvation. There is so much at stake for them. I think some of the process involves bringing down the 'strongholds' that exist in their minds. But a person has to be willing to acknowledge the truth. They also have to be willing to submit to Holy Ghost conviction. Jesus cast out devils and healed the sick and the religious leaders called it the power of Baalzebub. They did not just resist the Holy Ghost- but the near to blasphemed also. This attitude only grew worse nearing the second revolt. So far did they go that Akiba named Bar Kochba as Messiah forcing the Believing Jews to choose between their 'Jewishness' or their Christianity. Of course that all flopped, but even that received good press and a good historical review. Persecution, movings of the Spirit, eyewitneess' of God's witness of both signs, wonders, and divers miracles, etc. How much more shall not we escape if we turn away from Him that speaketh from Heaven, the writer to Hebrews asks.

This is why I question a concept that folk will at some point come to Christ when the conditions are right. The unbelieving Jews coexisted with the believing Jews in the synagogues until the Birkat-Ha-Minim (curse against heretics) was added to the daily prayers. (ed) They had seen a lot historically and still that did not turn the masses. It is an individual thing.

The lampstands in Rev. representing the "churches" (the called-out-ones or meeting places) are all in Turkey. Do you have any idea why The LORD would have chosen just those in Turkey to write this most important of all books to - in that it is the END of the Story.

I once knew a man, a fellow student, who believed that it was where Satan's seat is. He gave me his reasoning which I have long since forgotten. But the whole of the battle going on in those parts is due to the area being "Satan's seat". Those men were a [u]lot[/u] smarter than I. They seemed to have it figured out.

Brother Robert wrote:

We have a lot more light since the Old Testament. Hebrews is a terrible warning against turning from Jesus Christ. Galatians tells us that if we preach another Gospel we are anathema maranathama (cursed).

Heb. 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

There is no other gospel...it was preached to the generation in Moses's time as well as in the time of the Apostles.

I do not disagree with what you say in terms of reaching out to the lost who are Jews.

I too have seen the how the world uses Scriptures to promote their political agenda.

My only point is that the OT Scriptures do teach, do reveal Christ to those who live by faith. And the source of that faith is in the fountain of God. For those who hear and do the word of God, rivers will flow from them...

Prov. 9:10 \t“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
\tAnd the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Just a side comment...

I think the OT Scriptures teach that Daniel had more light then we do...

In Christ
Jeff

Dorcas: Ah! I see the similarity with the Roman church, now.

Throughout these types of conversations I try hard to emphasize the point that the Rabbi's are in authority in Rabbinic Judaism. I don't know if there is a parallel to this other than the Catholic church. If I might expand on this thought a bit...

AM HA-ARETZ: Those who reject Rabbinic authority

The term Am Ha Eretz means the “People of the Land” as in “the people of the land of Israel". As the Pharisees made their metamorphosis into Rabbi’s they changed that word to describe people who refused to accept the Rabbi’s authority. These people had to be dealt with. Not everyone went along with the Rabbi's in the early days.

In the time of Christ there were 4 major philosophies in Judaism:

1) Pharisees
2) Saducces
3) Essenes
4) [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1950]Zealots[/url], [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1949](Jewish Freedom Movement)[/url], [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1952](The Sicarii)[/url].

In AD 70 the Temple was destroyed and so were the Saducces. The Zealots fled to Masada (960) in all. They held out as Rome built a RAMP up the side of the mountain. For a while they dropped large stones down to hold the Romans off. So the Romans went into town and got their family members and marched them up the ramp in front. After this they made a pact and committed suicide save a few who hid in a cave. The Pharisees fled to Yavneh (Jamnia) to start Rabbinic Judaism.

While the Pharisee’s were working at Yavneh (Jamnia) a series of events took place in which cooperation with Rome gave the Pharisee’s great political power as they made the 'jump' (as it were) from the Pharisee's (as we knew them) to the Rabbis' as we now know them (this was the forging of Rabbinic Judaism).

Most Jews before the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 CE did NOT accept Rabbinic authority so a series of strong arm tactics began to FORCE the Jews into obedience. Rome became front and center. There was a certain group of Pharisees under Yohanan ben Zakkai that put down all other groups. Actually there were several different 'types' of Pharisees though we group them all together as one today. The authority granted to Yohanan ben Zakkai gave the Rabbi’s the necessary [u]power[/u] to alienate everyone who would not accept their authority. The Sanhedrin, for example, would allow testimonies against an “am ha eretz”, but would not allow testimony FOR them in their defense. They could not testify for anyone including themselves. They had no rights before the court of the Sanhedrin. Keep in mind this was done by a political alliance with Rome.

The Rabbis then took to publicly shunning those who would not accept their rule, and began to interfere in their personal lives. In Yeb.90b the Rabbi’s reserved the right to ANNUL any marriage that was not contracted in accordance with Rabbinic statutes (sound like the Catholic priestcraft?). The Rabbis also reserved the right to confescate their possessions as did Ezra (see Ezra 10:8). This is another reason why I often say that Rabbinic Judaism began with Ezra. He made a lot of decisions that set the course that the Jews are on today- religion in the absense of the prophetic voice of God. In that environment man is in authority and all kinds of madness goes on.

The Rabbis were so cruel to the people that if anyone desired to marry an Am ha-eretz (a person that rejected their authority)they considered it as beastiality. They used the reasoning “cursed be anyone who lies with a beast.” Dan Gruber quotes R. Meir in this regard saying… [i]“Whoever marries his daughter to an Am ha-eretz is as though he has laid her before a lion.”[/i] They depicted the Am ha-eretz as "LESS than human". It was even permitted to kill an Am ha-eretz in the holiest of times as though he were a beast (The cruelty is depicted by Gruber on P.135-139 of his book “Rabbi Akiba’s Messiah.”)

So we see then that the issue has always been about AUTHORITY the Pharisee's loved the chief seats and to be called Rabbi- Rabbi. They loved the prestige that they had. They loved to come off as God's Man. When Jesus came He disrupted this racket and in the face of unparalleled demonstration of the Finger of God they still would not surrender their authority. They, essentially, wanted to be GOD. They divided the worship.

It is important to note that there were MANY Jews and Pharisees that believed in Jesus as their Messiah and that the systematic methodology and travesty of Akiba all but stamped them out in time. Everything under the sun was done, and there was no limit to the madness of the Rabbis in securing their authority and eliminating ANY threats against them. For this cause the numbers of Christian Jews dwindled down and down and down. Soon the Gentiles would begin to believe that the Jews had rejected Jesus. And when this happened the seeds of Anti-Semitism began to be sown and a vicious cycle of abuse towards the Jews came into full swing. The believers in Jesus were hated by the Rabbis and the gentiles despised their Jewishness.

It may be hard for us as Christians to understand this, but in a very practical way Rabbi Akiba with the help of his disciples had exalted himself and been exalted by his latter followers to a status higher than Abraham, Moses, David, and even God Almighty. This is verified in the simple fact that the Rabbi’s after his time literally userped the authority of God in all matters of the word of God. To the Jews, NOT EVEN GOD CAN CONTRADICT A RABBI. They have ultimate and absolute authority. It is a vicious circle of deception that kept the Rabbi’s in control of God’s word through the “Oral Law” and later the Talmud through a process of halakah (keeping the Law’s of God modernized). When there is no prophetic voice- the people perish. the Rabbi's shut the prophetic voice of God totally down. They could overrule a prophet and reserved the right to interpret dreams. A Rabbi could even overrule a 'Bath Kol' (an audible voice from heaven). In fact, they said... [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=1959]IT IS NOT [u]IN[/u] HEAVEN.[/url]

The Rabbi’s after Akiba began using the word of God to make all sorts of traditions and doctrines of men until the original document (Torah) has almost no real meaning in a LITERAL sense anymore. From Ezra's time they felt that Babylon was a result of not keeping the Law. So- they began putting, "a fence around the Torah” (but it is more like a shield). It is a shield that keeps the light within the Law of God from being able to convert the soul. What Origin did to butcher many of the literal concepts of the scripture through the hermeneutical practice of ALLEGORY, Akiba took on to the next level and made the Law of Moses utterly of NONE EFFECT by the introduction of a library of halakic rulings and writings.

Enough for now...

Does every "eye" [singular] see Him, why not "eyes" [plural]?

Compliments wrote:
Does every "eye" [singular] see Him, why not "eyes" [plural]?

Every eye is plural, otherwise the word "every" would not be necessary. Simply put, "every eyes" is the same as saying "all eyes".

Consider the phrase, "Every man, woman and child", means all humanity, not just three people. "Every car on the road" is plural also (unless there is only one car on the road). ;-)

As you read through the book of Acts you find that there were ' thousands' of Jewish Believers in Christ that were yet "zealous of the Law."

Acts 21:20-21

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

It is interesting that the KJV translated [i]myriads[/i] as 'thousands' when everywhere else it means a vast multitude in the tens of thousands up to an innumerable number.

[b]Myriad or 'murias'[/b] NT:3461 denotes either "ten thousand," or, "indefinitely, a myriad, a numberless host," in the plural, Acts 19:19; lit. "five ten-thousands," Rev 5:11; 9:16; in the following, used of vast numbers, Luke 12:1, KJV, "an innumerable multitude," RV, "the many thousands" (RV marg., "the myriads"); Acts 21:20, "thousands"; Heb 12:22, "innumerable hosts"; Jude 14, "ten thousands" (RV, marg., in each place, "myriads"). See COMPANY, THOUSANDS. Cf. the adjective murios, "ten thousand," Matt 18:24; 1 Cor 4:15; 14:19. (Vine's)

There were very large numbers of believers in Jesus in Acts. This is not the case today percentage wise among Jews. There were several thousand saved at once when Peter preached at Pentecost. The key struggle is going to be found in the words, [i]and they are [u]all[/u] zealous for the law[/i]. The people heard Paul out and glorified God for his ministry among the Gentiles- then they question him pertaining what he was teaching the Jews that were scattered among the Gentiles.

Acts 21:23-25
We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. 25 But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."
NKJV

Obviously the people misunderstood Paul's Gospel. You will recall that Paul confronted Peter for not living up to the truth of the Gospel- compelling by his behavior the Gentiles to live as the Jews. In our text we have James confronting Paul on the question of whether or not he was teaching the Jews to live like Gentiles.

Acts 21:23-25

We have four men who have taken a vow. 24 Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that [i]you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law.[/i] 25 But [u]concerning the Gentiles who believe[/u], we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

The things "we have written and decided" is found in Acts 15. Keep in mind that the question in Acts 15 was, "Can a Gentile be saved and NOT keep the Law", while the question today is, "can a Jew be saved if they DO keep the Law." Paul understood and taught that the law is fulfilled by walking in the Spirit. Yet there were certain Jews who felt obligated to maintain their identity as 'the Jews' even though they were believers. If we key in on what James brought up we get an idea specifically what was meant.

Acts 21:21

1 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.

1) Forsake Moses
2) Don't circumcise
3) Don't walk according to customs

Paul went through the process as James asked. If we are reluctant to believe Paul was sincere in wanting the people to believe he did nothing against the customs he states later:

Acts 28:17

And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, [u]though I have committed nothing against the people, or [i]customs[/i] of our fathers,[/u] yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

So it seems that Paul was faithful to present the Gospel to the Gentiles as it seemed good to the apostles at Jerusalem and the Holy Ghost in Acts 15. Paul confronted Peter for compelling the Gentiles to live as the Jews. One of the aspects of the law that was definitely changed is that of assimilation. This was the message of the large sheet that God gave directly to Peter. He was falling back into the former ways after God gave him precise instructions, "What God has cleansed do not call common or unclean."

In time the Church would sort out areas of conscience. Many things I am speaking of here are matters of conscience. I have whole scholarly works written that try to prove that the 'weak' in Romans are [u]not[/u] those who wanted to keep certain of the laws. So these issues have been thoroughly polemically debated already. This topic is sorely deep. The problem is that folk began to do on a big scale what Paul said [u]not[/u] to do and that is to [i]set at naught[/i] their brethren. When folk felt compelled by conscience or for tradition sake to keep certain days and feasts and circumcision they were made to believe that it was counter to the Gospel.

What exasperated the issue is that the Religious Jews were [u]very[/u] hostile to Christians. They saw them as a threat to their power structure so they persecuted the believers terribly. Believers were no longer welcome in the Synagogues. They were considered 'minim' which means 'heretics'. A curse was added to the daily prayers called the Birkat Ha-minim. Now imagine this environment? They are not welcome in the Synagogue because they believe in Christ. They are increasingly unwelcome in churches because they keep the customs of the Jews. They are made to believe that they have to forsake all things Jewish or they cannot be saved.

The problem with this view is that the Gentiles were mostly Pagan before they were saved. They had no biblical foundation. They carried pagan concepts into the Church within the vacuum of Old Testament law. Soon the Church was flooded with all manor of heresies that gave rise to the age of the apologists. John's later writings are believed to be written to combat gnosticism. So we see a flood of Greek ideas trying to infiltrate the church. The believing Jews see this and reject it out of hand. They got caught in a sort of 'limbo'. They can't return to first century Judaism (not to be confused with modern day Rabbinic Judaism) and they won't follow a Church that is heading dangerously towards the things that eventually gave rise to the Great Reformation.

To them they had to become a Gentile in order to be saved. They had to cast off the Biblical foundations and embrace things that their conscience would not allow if they were to be Christians. By 135 AD the deal was nearly sealed as Rabbi Akiba named Simon Bar Kochba as the Messiah. The believers in Christ would not follow him and were considered traitors to the Jewish people. To be a Jew was to be hated because of all the persecutions the brought on believers.

Where would they go? Who would continue to reach the Jews who have taken up Rabbinic Judaism- their kinsman according to the flesh? The next several centuries would witness a tremendous gap in between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity... a gap much farther apart than the one that existed in Acts.

RobertW wrote:
Where would they go? Who would continue to reach the Jews who have taken up Rabbinic Judaism- their kinsman according to the flesh? The next several centuries would witness a tremendous gap in between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity... a gap much farther apart than the one that existed in Acts.

This very theme was discussed within our home fellowship last night. The issue of "to the Jew first..." and that of Israel's provocation to jealousy was our matter at hand. We had a visitor, who is a part of the open air outreach which I frequent, and this addition brought an interesting element.

Being an evangelist in a nation where the prevailing climate of the church is "anti-evangelistic" (at least the emphasis is far from primary), we who are active can tend to be "evangelistic toward evangelism". By this I mean we hammer away at peoples excuses for not evangelising, just as we do at sinners excuses for not repenting.

Much of our visitor's conversation was like what has occurred here, any mention of a future salvation of Israel's remnant was met with insistence that we need to reach out to them now. Any reference to the primacy of Israel in the context of the gospel, was met with insistence that reaching out to the lost is the primary role of the church. In an environment which is face to face, objections could be addressed as they were raised. We carefully stated that, within the context of Israel's remnant being saved, and the provocation of Jews to jealousy, reaching out to the lost, both Jew and Gentile, was of primary importance, for who but the redeemed would be capable of provoking them to jealousy, leading to them repenting wholesale, in the wake of Jacob's Trouble.

The comparison was made between the host (who is Jewish) mentioning how, for him to go to a synagogue, would invoke persecution from ultra-orthodox Jews, causing them to spit in his face, and worse, and the guest (who is of Egyptian background) mentioning how in his country, such evangelism could invoke the receiving of acid water to the face. From this perspective, we considered who we can truly go to the Jew first, in obedience to the Great Commision.

Fact is, most Israelites have become hardened to the gospel, through a combination of Christendom's disassociation with Israel, seen by the deliberate separation of the Christian holidays from the Jewish (eg, Easter separated from Pesach [Passover], and Christmas from Sukkot [Tabernacles]), and the insistence on the Jews being guilty of "crucifying their Lord", and also through the systematic attempts to destroy them in the name of Christ (eg, the Crusades and Nazi Holocaust). In their eyes, "Christianity" has become their enemy, and therefore these events have served to be as the water poured on the altar by Elijah, requiring a fire to fall from heaven to ignite the offering.

The issue at hand is how can we as a believers provoke Israel to jealousy? Art Katz has noted a silence from Scripture regarding the answer to this question, but has gone on to deduce that a "martyrdom" element would be required. A Church that is prepared to lay down their own life for the sake of an Israel that despises them, and goes on to display a degree of compassion that is impossible for a mere mortal to perform, will display that they are Christ's disciples, and this alone would provoke the kind of jealousy that will breed their repentance. How can this happen, considering the state of the modern day Church (observed from an Australian perspective), where loving each other is such a struggle? How can such a Church come to the point of laying down their life for each other, let alone Israel?

This issue is one of intense practicalities. It has the potential cause a great schism, or promote unity on the deepest level. Considering Paul's statement that failure in the grasping of this mystery, risks us becoming wise in our "own conceits", this is altogether understandable. After all, what is more divisive than a coneited individual?

This issue also cuts straight to the heart of election, for we can see, hot on the heels of Paul's mention of the mystery, and how "...concerning the gospel, they (Jews) are enemies for your (Gentiles) sakes: but as touching the election, they (Jews) are beloved for the fathers’ (Patriarchs) sakes." (Rom 11:28):

[b]33[/b] O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [i]are[/i] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
[b]34[/b] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
[b]35[/b] Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
[b]36[/b] For [u]of him[/u], and [u]through him[/u], and [u]to him[/u], [i]are[/i] [u]all things[/u]: to whom [i]be[/i] glory for ever. Amen.
[b]Rom 11:33-36[/b]

[b]1[/b] I beseech you [u]therefore[/u], brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye [u]present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God[/u], [i]which is[/i] your [u]reasonable (logical) service[/u].
[b]2[/b] And [u]be not conformed to this world[/u]: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, [u]that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God[/u].
[b]Rom 12:1-2[/b]

..and this issue cuts to the heart of discerning the will of God, for we read on:

Romans 12:1 I beseech you therefore,...

We may have discussed here before that the 'therefore' is evidence that Romans 12:1 is a continuation of Romans 9,10,11 and is actually the the main point. In other words... because of Romans 9,10,11 you should Romans 12:1.

I wonder if Paul here has in mind a 'living burnt offering'. A lot of people are dying for religion these days so I am not sure that martyrdom really moves people as we might think. Some view it as just more fanaticism. I am not anti-martyrdom, I am just trying to focus on what it means to be a 'living' sacrifice.

I think that in order for any person to turn to God they have to have a real sense that God is 'there'. When I say 'there' I mean active in the individual [i]and[/i] corporate lives of the Church. Even as backslidden as Eli was when Samuel conveyed God's message- he still replied "It is the LORD." I cannot help but think that if there is anything we need in our times it is the sense that when a person preaches, teaches, or witnesses the hearers conclude "it is the LORD."

I admire Art's speaking and many of his messages. But what I am referring to is not eloquence or the ability to articulate circumstances and positions that leaves a person awe struck and spell bound. I am referring to a message that resonates in the hearers sense of the fear of the LORD and causes them to tremble at the word. When Paul would preach the people would tremble, even leaders.

Moreover I do not believe that the Jews are going to be won to Christ with a whole bunch of sound bite preaching. We need some Paul's that have a complete grasp of the Gospel and can preach it with potency and power. A Gospel that puts the pieces together in the minds of the people and forces them to choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

I think too often we get caught up in the past. I am quite familiar also with the things that have been done to the Jews from Justin Martyr down to Hitler. I think we need to be aware of it so as not to come off ignorant. If you come off as ignorant about the issues then the door may well close right off. You may get patted on the head or something and chocked up as not knowing any better.

For me, I think you have to stick to the story line. The Gospel is told through the events of the Old Testament. The feasts teach the Gospel and so does the historical lives of the people. It is an allegory- but not everything is allegorical. Their is real history there- but each real historical event was chosen of God among the billions of human lives He could have recorded to tell the story of the Gospel. We have to emphasize this. The Orthodox are best to reach in this regard as they at least believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament.

There has to be a way of putting the responsibility back into the hands of the individual for their own interpretation of the scriptures. The people have to be caused to read the word of God for themselves and not rely on Rabbinic authority past or present. It is their soul and they have to answer to God for themselves. Each one of us is going to give an account to God- we cannot appeal to anyone for that. In a sense we are right back where we were with the Catholics during the reformation. There needs to be an interruption in their hermaneutical paradigm. They have to come to understand that they are in authority when it comes to their own soul and conscience. The Rabbi's are no mans conscience any more than the Catholic church is anyones conscience. We all have one as individuals. I think this needs to be utterly driven home to break the stronghold of deception that they run to for security soteriologically. If one is proficient at reaching a Catholic- it would seem to me they would be the same for a Jew. I have seen several Catholics come to genuine salvation and it always happened in an atmosphere of Holy Ghost preaching.

RobertW wrote:
I wonder if Paul here has in mind a 'living burnt offering'. A lot of people are dying for religion these days so I am not sure that martyrdom really moves people as we might think. Some view it as just more fanaticism. I am not anti-martyrdom, I am just trying to focus on what it means to be a 'living' sacrifice.

Just to clarify what I mean by martyrdom, here I am referring more to the state of being that precedes the actual physical death. It is the "dying daily" as one gives their life, and ultimately their death, for another. I refer to such a "living burnt offering", as you put it. A love that extends beyond mere natural ability, into the realm of laying down of a life, as a husband for his bride, as Christ for the church.

Moreover I do not believe that the Jews are going to be won to Christ with a whole bunch of sound bite preaching. We need some Paul's that have a complete grasp of the Gospel and can preach it with potency and power. A Gospel that puts the pieces together in the minds of the people and forces them to choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

I am reminded of Josef Tson, who while under house arrest, being interrogated during the week, and only aloud to leave the house to preach in his church on Sunday. One man who attended a service, admitting that his intention was to see what someone could possibly have to say, living in such a climate. Although he could not recall what was said, he was astounded at the degree of life and liberty emanating from Tson, that he could not deny that God was speaking. The man himself was the very message of God. This from a man who lives as though dying daily.

If such a display provoked a Romanian, under Communist rule, to jealousy, how mucn more the Jews?

If such a display provoked a Romanian, under Communist rule, to jealousy, how much more the Jews?

When we talk about 'jealousy' I am thinking about a feeling that comes about when one person senses that God is at work with someone else and not them. A sense of being 'left out'. This presupposes that the one has to realize that God is [u]not[/u] at work with them. They then have to desire God to be at work with them. They then have to become zealous for that working. So I see it as progressive.

The trouble, as you know, is that practicing Jews have been taught sense they were children that the Rabbi's are in authority. Daniel Gruber's work [i]Rabbi Akiba's (Akiva) Messiah[/i] and also his work [i]The Day the Rabbi's were wrong[/i] are most enlightening. They systematically made God unwelcome in their lives in any real and prophetic sense. So even if God Himself were to appear and bring a word or revelation the Rabbi's can over rule it. They could 'overrule' Paul's Damascus road experience if he went to them with that experience. In fact, when they heard Paul's testimony they wanted to kill him:

Acts 22:17-22

17 And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, [u]I was in a trance[/u];

18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: f[u]or they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.[/u]

19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee:

20 And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.

21 And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.

22 And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.
KJV

The pressure to grasp their exclusivity as God's chosen people is horrendous. I see two things at work here:

1) The common people the Jews do not want to surrender their exclusivity as God's chosen people.

2) The leaders who survived (the Sadducees died out in 70AD), more specifically that specific sect of the Pharisees that eventually started Rabbinic Judaism with the help of the Romans, do not want to surrender the authority they are userping.

The first question as I see it is dealt with by simply referring to Shema. There is only one God.

Rom 3:29-30

Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 [u]Seeing it is one God[/u], which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

To suggest that the Gentiles have some other God they must go to is to acknowledge other gods as [i]valid[/i] and is a breach of the first commandment of the Decalogue [i]Thou shalt have no other gods before me[/i]; as in they must not be brought before me as much as in my presence (The first command of the 613 laws is be fruitful and multiply).

The second issue of Rabbinic authority is most challenging. I believe a good study of the history of how this all began, starting with Ezra has to be spelled out to show them how they got on this track. Can there be a reformation in Rabbinic Judaism? I believe it is already taking place. The Jews are starting to go through what Christianity went through in the 1500's I believe. Gruber's work is almost a 95 Thesis in my opinion. The Church Universal was locked up for near a 1000 years in deadness. What was the solution? It was the re-revelation of the authority of the scriptures as written. Not a Priest and not a commentary.

Two things have to be called to the carpet in my estimation;

1) Rabbinic authority past and present
2) The validity of the Oral Law

The Reformation brought to us afresh the concept of the [i]priesthood of all believers[/i]. No need for a go-between. No need for [i]any man to teach you[/i]. But a fresh realization the God wants to reveal to us His will individually and directly from His word. Sola Scriptura became one of the battle cries. Yet, the pressure to conform and not to challenge the authority of the Rabbi's is enormous. It is hard for us to comprehend what forsaking that authority would mean to a Jew.

It would be like a Catholic coming to Christ and renouncing his/her entire upbringing. I think that the things that really need to be said are so volatile that those who speak out will meet the same fate that Paul met in Acts 21 and 22. When people believe lies they become a stronghold- a place where they go to [i]feel safe[/i]. You are flushing them out of their safe-place and forcing them to reckon with reality.

Acts 22:23
And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air,...

This is the reaction of the Jews being flushed from their stronghold. This was Paul 'pulling down strongholds'. The dust in the air is the building collapsing from the carefully placed charges. Truth and testimony are the detonators. I think as far as martyrdom is concerned... this will be Ground Zero.

RobertW wrote:
When we talk about 'jealousy' I am thinking about a feeling that comes about when one person senses that God is at work with someone else and not them. A sense of being 'left out'. This presupposes that the one has to realize that God is [u]not[/u] at work with them. They then have to desire God to be at work with them. They then have to become zealous for that working. So I see it as progressive.

The trouble, as you know, is that practicing Jews have been taught sense they were children that the Rabbi's are in authority. Daniel Gruber's work [i]Rabbi Akiba's (Akiva) Messiah[/i] and also his work [i]The Day the Rabbi's were wrong[/i] are most enlightening. They systematically made God unwelcome in their lives in any real and prophetic sense. So even if God Himself were to appear and bring a word or revelation the Rabbi's can over rule it. They could 'overrule' Paul's Damascus road experience if he went to them with that experience. In fact, when they heard Paul's testimony they wanted to kill him:
....
Truth and testimony are the detonators. I think as far as martyrdom is concerned... this will be Ground Zero.

History is riddled with the corpses of the likes of David Brainerd, Robert Murray Mccheyne, Oswald Chambers, and Keith Green, each snatched before their prime. Not that they sought "early retirement", but that death was an inevitability. Islam has a lot too answer for, for its redefinition of martyrdom, as a weapon. When it was observed that the blood of the martyrs was the seed of the church, this was not a planned thing. It was merely the result. Men died as a result of their lack of compromise, and this validated their testimony, pure and simple.

The jealousy of which I speak of, is one which unveils and proves that this rabbinical counterfeit cannot cut the mustard. It is one that exposes the humanistic nature of such a philosophy that seeks to replace God with a Hebrew version of Nietzsche's "Übermensch". The audacity of a nation that replaces God with Rabbinical authority will be judged. Previously God judged Israel for its pursuit of foreign God's while simultaneously serving Him, in this future Time of Jacob's Trouble, the ultimacy of God's temporal wrath will be poured out for their pursuit of the current Gentile God, Atheism which is essentially the worship of man, in and of himself.

In fact, considering that most theologians would tie Jacob's trouble with the Great Tribulation, and that most would acknowledge that the primary character in the Tribulation is the Beast, and that his "number" is 666 (ie, the fulfilment of man's sin nature), this is in keeping such logic.

Note that this "martyrdom" of which I speak (consistently throughout every post that I have made in this thread) is connected to this Time of Jacob's Trouble. What I put forward is that Jacob's Trouble will be the pretext for the Tribulation, in that Israel will face such wrath of God, delivered by the hands of wicked men, and that the Church will suffer for its association with Israel. This martyrdom will be one of Believers laying down their lives for the sake of Israel. This kind of love, which would be impossible for a mere humans (and according to Jesus, will be evidence of discipleship when expressed between believers, so how much more when directed to an unbelieving Israel), has the potential to destroy the myth of rabbinical Judaism.

Consider also that today's Jews aren't pursuing Vishnu, Buddha or Allah, let alone Baal, Ashtoreth and Moloch anymore, as a result of God's chastening at the hands of Babylon and Assyrian, is it really inconceivable that a future Time of Trouble, which will exceed all others, leading to two thirds of the world's Jews perishing (something that has never happened before) could lead to the kind of humbling that will lead to the forsaking of Zionism and Talmudic Judaism?

Consider also Paul as "parabolic" of Israel's future redemption. Saul of Tarsus no doubt was affected by witnessing Stephen's martyrdom. Later when the Lord appeared to him in the blinding light, Saul is transformed from one who is "kicking against the goads", hating and persecuting Christians, to Paul who is led to Ananias' house, to have the scales fall from his eyes as Ananias ministered to him.

Likewise, consider a scenario where Israel is brought face to face with a Messianic people, who continue to display love and intercession toward them, in spite of receiving nothing but hatred and mockery as a result. Consider Israel, then facing a "blinding light" of Jacob's Trouble being unleashed upon it, as it "kicks against the goads", by erecting its own replacement of the "faith once delivered to the saints". Consider how the scales will fall from their eyes as the Church ministers to them, while fearing persecution, as a result. If only to say that Paul shows that it could possibility happen, what with the "pharisee of pharisees" being humbled in the face of the Revelation of God, colliding with the demonstration of Discipleship before him.

Compliments wrote:
Are Jews today jealous?

And jealous of what?

The message of the gospel is still open to them.

"to provoke them to jealously" is this a revenge on God's part? The Jews caused God to be jealous thru out the Old Testament period, is God paying them back?

bro Aaron and all

Greetings in Jesus' Name by whose Blood we are reconciled to God. AMEN.

Interesting this last statement in light of Rev 12:11 "...they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death". It would seem that these statements are connected and dependant on each other. Truth and testimony are irrelevant out of the context of a life that is expressive of that very truth and testimony, or else both become a lie. The ultimate goal of a life that is lived in uncompromising truth, is that of martyrdom, whether by the hands of sinners, or by disease and "accidental" elements, the world cannot tolerate such a demonstration, and will do all that it can to extinguish it.

your whole post blessed me so but i feel led to share a bit on the above. i bless God for this. Art Katz speaks often of the need for the provoking of Jews to jealousy and such can only be achieved by living the life of a martyr daily. this is the expression/demonstration of the Faith and the only thing sufficient for such. Strangely Jew can see through the fascade of what is is presented as the Faith but are blind to their own hypocrisies. The ointment (as you alluded to) i guess is the display of the True Faith from us which will expose to these our brethren their iniquity, bringing as many as would to repentance and Salvation through Christ.

i was shown of God something about the scripture which was quoted from the Revelation. in the YLT it says they are overcoming speaking more of a continual work. all the same the statements are indeed linked together as you suspect. We are overcoming/have overcome by the Blood of the Lamb, being covered in the Blood we are freed from the bonds of Sin. By the word of their testimony , to be so covered by the Blood gives us something to proclaim about the Goodness and MErcy of God in word to others and most importantly by our lives being living epistles to the world and loving not our lives unto death speaks of the might of this testimony which we have that we come to love more than life itself such that nothing else is more valuable and we can lay our lives down not only daily as is required but even finally. Without the Blood of the Lamb, there can be no Testimony, without the Testimony there can be no loving not of our lives unto the death which is required of us daily and also which may be required of us as our rapture out of here.

Grace and Peace to you all

"to provoke them to jealously" is this a revenge on God's part? The Jews caused God to be jealous thru out the Old Testament period, is God paying them back?

I think the primary purpose is to cause the Jews according to the flesh to feel a sense of fresh zeal for God. I don't see it as retaliation, but of God's wisdom working through human nature in the affairs of men. It is the revelation of the glory and majesty of God.

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? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. (Romans 11)

The point that Paul makes throughout Romans is that the Jews do have a 'zeal' for God- but it is not according to knowledge. I am thinking now of Galatians where the people were asked if they received the Holy Spirit by the works of the Law of by the hearing of faith? It was the hearing of faith. The Jews could not go about to establish their own righteousness and receive the Holy Spirit in the process. So we have to be considering the receiving of the Holy Spirit to be front and center of our whole conversation.

God did not desire to live in Temples made with hands. this was the thrust of Stephen's message. God desired to live in the individual and manifest Himself on a corporate level through the people. However, they did always resist the Holy Ghost. What is going on here is that the Jews have to be provoked to wanting to receive the Holy Spirit. It has to be done in such a way as they will submit themselves to the righteousness of God. They have to be provoked to 'begin in the Spirit'.

When Peter went to the house of Cornelius and the Holy Ghost fell on him- this is no doubt this testimony provoked the Jews to jealousy who believed in the exclusivity of the Jewish Nation as the people of God. This is why the people threw dust into the air. They were provoked... sometimes you have to really anger a person before they will see the light. Not intentionally- but by holding the truth before them. When Paul said Jesus was sending him to the Gentiles those who were zealous for the law (Acts 21, 22) fulfilled the prophesy as it came from Pauls' mouth. He had to appeal to Ceasar.

Provoking a person to Jealousy is dangerous. Provoking a people as a whole to jealousy is exceedingly dangerous. This, I think, will continue to have to be done and the effects dealt with until the coming of the Lord. Someone is going to have to stand up as did Luther and speak the truth. The Gentiles may well bring persecution- but that is the same environment as the first century. They (the unbelieving Jews) could swing a sword (at the Christians) while being smitten on the back (by the Romans). They could persecute in the midst of their own persecutions. Proof of this is seen historically in 70AD and 135AD. Death and famine on every hand. Women cooking and eating their own babies and yet they drew the sword and cursed the believers at the same time. Unbelieveable. ed. The environment that existed between the time of Christ and 135 is exceedingly violent beyond our comprehension. People were persecuting and being persecuted. The Zealots were killing and being killed.

Hmm, I could not help but wonder after so long a time especially just being one who served God in my mind, and I was as this: I wot not what I do.
In the letter, the commandment killeth, but in the spirit in truly giveth life.
Especially when such priest of the law are as the people, the people cam to Aarron and said make us gods to go before us, and Israel joined herself to ball peor.
Oh if Ballam was obvious to you, understand the part about not turning out of the way, that his transgresiion was against the aungel, in fact Israel were given to Baal's wicked inventions and they wrought after the wickedness of their imaginacions
O how God's chosen Iacob would understand, that the Matthew's I, in Iacob, Iesus and Israel, was just a I looking like a fancy J, such words needed litte amendment, for God's word is not corrupt in the fact, that doctrines that asurp God's commandments come up. Like that the women should be in subjection to their husbands as Sara to Abraham and called him Lord; whose daughters ye are? I am found hating the filthy vesture of the flesh.
(1537 Matthew's with modern verse bridging)
Joel 2 12-18 ¶ Now therefore sayeth the LORD: Turn you unto me with all your hearts, with fasting, weeping and mourning,
13 rent your hearts, and not your clothes. Turn you unto the LORD your God, for he is gracious and merciful, long suffering and of great compassion: and ready to pardon wickednesse.
14 Then (no doute) he also shall turn, and forgive: and after his chastening, he shall let your increase remain, for meat and drink offerings unto the Lorde your God:
15 Blow out with the trumpet in Sion, proclaim a fasting, call the congregacyon,
16 and gather the people together: warn the congregation, gather the elders, bring the children and sucklings together. Let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.
17 Let the priestes serve the LORD betwixt the porch and the alter, weeping and saying: be favourable O LORD, be favourable unto thy people: let not thine heritage be brought to such confusion, lest the Heathen be lords thereof. Wherefore should they say among the Heathen: where is now their God?
18 ¶ Then shall the Lorde be jealous over his land, and spare his people:

A cursed, means a preacher that is a tree rotten in autumn, carried about of winds, speaking peace and no daunger, but proudly they feast with you, having eys full of adultery and praying under a colour of long prayers.
Those having a form of godliness but denying the power therof such abhor.
Christ's sacrifice was not meat and drink, not a symbol, but the blood and the bread. FOr the blood is the persuections and painfulmisery of the cross and the bread is such great daily bread to be ministered. See why suche get sick and die so quickly?
The Lorde is merciful, but at the end he is a jelous god, for he sees that with patience only God's chosen can deliver their own souls.Amen

God's heart is not wit this people, yet he will prick you reigns and be like a elke onto you with his chastisement, lest his fury break forth like fyre and burn that no man can queche it

dorcas wrote:

The choice of 'God' with a capital 'G' in your last mention of it here, is confusing, I think, as it gives an honour to an idol which is not due.

You also said that Jews don't worship Baal, Ashtoreth or Moloch any more. This is highly unlikely, (imo), as the worship of these gods has continued unabated (but necessarily [i]unnamed[/i] in those terms in Western civilisations), in every society by practices which are flourishing today - except where true Christianity has caused a change of heart and lifestyle. (The rest are hypocrites - and I don't say that lightly.)

Much more to comment on, but due to lack of time, I'll leave comments on only those essential to clarity, hoping that these will clarify any other misconceptions.

Just one aside to insert, if it is true that ignorance of the mystery risks becoming conceited, then one can conclude that many errors find linkage in this. Therefore it is understandable that one comment in this area can imply a embracing of error, do to the lack of clarity presented on this theme. Art and Reggie are rare (not only) voices on the mystery of Israel and the church, and Tson is a rare voice in the area of "practical martyrdom" (for want of a better phrase). Perhaps these themes colliding have the potential being a modern day "95 Theses".

Just one aside to insert, if it is true that ignorance of the mystery risks becoming conceited, then one can conclude that many errors find linkage in this.

[i]Blindness[/i] in part is happened unto Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles come in. I wonder if we can explore this 'blindness' for some clues as to what exactly is going on in the 1st Century. Try to add some historical background to the text.

You will recall in Mark 6:51:

And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered. For they [u]considered not[/u] the miracle of the loaves: for [u]their heart was hardened[/u].

The Greek word for 'considered not' means [i]to put together[/i] as in [i]to comprehend[/i]. They did not 'put together' the miracle of the loaves because their heart was hardened. What could be meant by this? Could it be that they could not see that the miracles were done by the Finger of God? What could be worse? Some actually attributed the working of God to Satan. Why? Could it be because God had chosen the foolish things to confound the mighty? He works in such a way that men cannot gain the glory for what is done. God will not share His glory save with His Son and us through Him. We dare not steal His glory any other way. In fact, God had chosen to send the Messiah clad in the garments of a Carpenter and disciples that were fisherman, Zealots and Publicans? Were they angry that God had not called a group a Pharisees to do the work?

God called that bluff when He ordained Saul of Tarsus. It seems almost as if God was knocking down their excuses one by one and as Pharoah they were getting harder and harder each time. God pulled out one of their brightest and best and Paul even mentioned that to them in Acts 21. In effect- "You wanted as Pharisee- here I am! You wouldn't respect the beggarly publicans and fisherman- here I am! I sat at the feet of Gamaliel. I am a Hebrew among Hebrews exceedingly zealous of all that a Pharisee would be." So much for that excuse.

Notice that the people were getting more and more hostile as time went on. They were not second guessing themselves- they were getting increasingly bent on putting out the light of the Glory of God. If we can understand WHY the people put a vail on Moses face when he came down from the mountain we can understand why the people refuse to believe on Christ. To me- the issue is the same. What is it?

2 Cor 3:12-17
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Sometimes you have to read the Bible in reverse. If the Spirit of the Lord is present then there is freedom. Freedom from what? Freedom from the fear that made the people exceedingly fear and quake (Hebrews 12:21). [i]It is the fear experienced when a person holds sin in their hand in the presence of God.[/i] It is the fear that comes when a person is resisting the Holy Spirit. When God shows up and sin is in the camp there are two options:

1) Repent and forsake the sin
2) Put a vail over the Glory of God

WOE is me for I am undone said Isaiah. The people had a Isaiah and Jacob type experience at the foot of that mountain. But their reaction to it was not Isaiah's or Jacob's. It was one of rebellion. Plainly put- no one really wants to see the glory of God when they entertain sin in their life. When you eat, drink and rise up to play you don't want God raining on your parade. But the people still wanted to be identified as God's chosen people.

Finney stated well that resistance of the Holy Ghost implies a struggle. If the people would only surrender to the Holy Spirit then the LIBERTY necessary to deliver them from the fear that kept them in bondage all their lives (Hebrews 2:15). They did not fear the LORD they were [i]afraid[/i] of the Lord. The fear of the Lord is what keeps a person from sinning- being afraid of God is what Adam and Eve experienced once their conscience was transgressed when they defied God. They needed the Blood of Christ to purge their conscience from dead works to serve the Living God.

Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.

When they decide to repent of their sin the vail will be removed and they will understand the Gospel. The Gospel does not make sense because they refuse to repent. Sin blinds the heart. Sin blinds the understanding. When sin is being grasped its an invite to blindness and ignorance. When a person gives themselves over to their senses they invite deception. Sin will make a miracle from God look like the devil at work. The mind becomes twisted like wicker furniture- desperately [i]wicked[/i]. In a mind bent on sin- 2+2=6.

Eating and drinking and rising up to play all the while the vail is on Moses head. Fornicating and making a Golden Calf- wondering why they could not endure the Glory of God when they saw it. This is what we see in our times. Folk want a dead church where no glory is. Why? They want to keep playing.

BUT, [i]when it shall turn to the Lord...[/i] they will see the error of their way. BUT, [i]when it shall turn to the Lord...[/i] they will understand their bible. BUT, [i]when it shall turn to the Lord...[/i] they will understand the Gospel. BUT, [i]when it shall turn to the Lord...[/i] they will have a Psalm 51 with God. BUT. [i]when it shall turn to the Lord...[/i] they will recognize their Messiah. Why? Because where the Spirit of the LORD is there is freedom- and He would flood on in if they would simply stop [i]resisting the Holy Ghost[/i], forsake their sin and TURN to God. ]

What is [i]religion[/i]? It is [u]worship[/u] in the absence of God. It is [u]feast days[/u] in the absence of God. It is [u]good works[/u] (acts of tzedekiah) in the absence of God. It is [i]Torah study[/i] in the absence of God. It is [i]prayers[/i] in the absence of God. If I regard iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear. Religion is one-way service towards God. He is not reciprocating. Why? Because they as Jews and non-Jews alike have one starting commandment from God and until we get past this- we go no farther:

Acts 17:30-31

And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

The problem is sin. The remedy is repentance and they have to do that for themselves. We have to learn to separate the 'reasons' from the 'excuses' as to why the Jews or non-Jews won't believe. Do we somehow think that in the judgment God is going to allow all the excuses people are trying to legitimize? He will discern the very thoughts and intents of the heart. He will lay bare their own minds before them. They will not 'articulate' their way out in day of judgment. We must compel them to repent. My short sided Christian life is an [u]excuse[/u] it is not a [i]reason[/i] for anyone to [i]not[/i] repent. As much as I agree with Art (and have sat under his lectures and enjoyed it very much); We do a serious injustice to anyone, in my estimation, for making them feel that the shortcomings and sins of the Church past and present are a good reason to keep on rebelling against God.

What is the greatest sin?

Mat 9:28 And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mat 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

Mat 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen [it], repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here [is] Christ, or there; believe [it] not.

Mat 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, [he is] in the secret chambers; believe [it] not.

Mat 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel

What is the reason for Repentance? Jesus said, "the Kingdom of God is at Hand". Meaning He Himself was Here Now. They would not believe.
This is the greatest sin of all. Repentance is for this reason, believe That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, this is repentance. Then we can repent of individual sins as the Holy Spirit convicts us and the Mind of Christ is renewed in us to The Gospel that was given to Paul, "my gospel", that is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory". Believing this brings repentance to its peak, that "It is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me."

Galatians 2:19-21 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

No more law to repent of, believing That Jesus Christ is the Son of God is the believing repentance that brings salvation and a new Life in Christ Jesus.

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.

Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

This is what believing and repentance is about. Not repent of our sins and be baptized, for this we will do if God permit, but repent of the sin of unbelief, and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved.

1Cr 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Gal 6:12 As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of ChriSt

In Christ: Phillip

Brother Robert wrote:

If we can understand WHY the people put a vail on Moses face when he came down from the mountain we can understand why the people refuse to believe on Christ. To me- the issue is the same. What is it?

Jesus teaches...

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

There are two spiritual kingdoms. Satan is the father of one and Christ was sent to reveal the way to the His Father in heaven. Those who are adopted into the heavenly kingdom are those who hear God's words. Jesus said this to the Jews who were of Satan's kingdom...

John 8:39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.

Freedom from captivity is wrougth in the covenant made with Abraham. Those who remain captive to Satan hide from the light that was given to Abraham and his children in each generation as an everlasting covenant. They whose works are evil hate the light.

Genesis 3:15 establishes this truth. The examples given to us in Abel and Cain represent this truth...

1John 3:10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

In Christ
Jeff

Jeff's: Freedom from captivity is wrougth in the covenant made with Abraham. Those who remain captive to Satan hide from the light that was given to Abraham and his children in each generation as an everlasting covenant. They whose works are evil hate the light.

Genesis 3:15 establishes this truth. The examples given to us in Abel and Cain represent this truth...

I am trying to understand why people, in the face of the facts, continue to reject the truth about their own condition- somehow believing (as did Cain) that they can go about to do things 'their way' and still be acceptable with God? Why did the Jews refuse to accept what God says about all human beings- "You are a Sinner". We be not born of fornication, we are not sinners as the Gentiles, I thank thee of God that I'm not like this wretched publican, and on and on. They refuse to [i]confess[/i] their sin. They refuse to agree with God. They refuse to acknowledge they are sinners.

There are few prides that are quite so vile as religious pride. A pride that refuses to acknowledge sin. It makes excuses or alters the law- but it will not acknowledge. It's all garbage. Paul said that he counted what things he might rejoice in the flesh as dung- that he might win Christ and be found in Him. This should be all believers attitude. BUT, to begin in the Spirit a person has to come to this place of humiliation. A place where they realize that they are nothing before God. To me, this is what the unbelieving Jews stumbled over. They went about to establish their own righteousness and were broken off the vine in the process. They would not submit. They would not submit themselves. The would not submit themselves to the righteousness of God. Always wanting to come off as if they were highly favored of God. Putting up pretences. Again, God will not share His glory. He will not allow man to boast.

Christinyou wrote:
This is the greatest sin of all. Repentance is for this reason, believe That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, this is repentance. Then we can repent of individual sins as the Holy Spirit convicts us and the Mind of Christ is renewed in us to The Gospel that was given to Paul, "my gospel", that is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory". Believing this brings repentance to its peak, that "It is no longer I who lives but Christ who lives in me."

Generally, when "works" are mentioned in a positive light, varying degrees of accusations of legalism are made, as if works are evil, in themselves. This is bordering on "epicureanism", which effectively denies the value of living morally, entirely. The works which Paul emphasised as beneficial, are those which spontaneously emanate out of a life which is redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and has the Spirit of Christ making His abode in, and taking the reins of it, as a logical result of that redemption. Such a life is one which is lived by one that Christ referred to "My disciple", having among other things, taken up their own cross and followed Him into identification with His death, burial and resurrection, as a qualifying prerequisite.

This theme of Gentiles provoking Jews to jealousy, in their time of extremity, is essentially one of works. I have repeatedly mentioned the fact that Christ pointed to "believers loving one another" as being a silent testimony to the world of the fact of their discipleship, and how much more will this fact be stated when this love is extended toward the Jews, in spite of Israel's loathing of all things "Christian"? The jealousy produced, will be the kind coming from the undeniable evidence of [b]these[/b] "uncircumcised Gentiles" knowing the God that Israel acknowledges by Name, and yet denies by their philosophy and lifestyle.

Both Jeff and Phillip have stated quite well, from slightly different angles, that Israel's primary sin is that of failing to recognise God as God, whose Kingdom has come, and has found physical expression is Yeshua Bar Yosef Ha Meshiach. Paul's statement, to the Athenians, on Mars Hill, was that God's verification of Christ's role as Judge of the quick and the dead was His resurrection from the dead. Could it be that God will use the demonstration of Christ's "Body" having experienced its own resurrection, after its preceding death and burial, all through the waters of baptism, and the repentance that it signifies, to further confirm the fact of impending Judgment?

This missing ingredient in the historical observations, is the penultimate suffering of the Time of Jacob's Trouble which, although has been tasted as "entrees", has yet to be dished up as a "main course".

So we have a work (provoking to jealousy), and a scene (the Time of Jacob's Trouble), neither of which replaces the plan of salvation (Repentance, to faith, to holiness, without which no man can see God), which is necessarily preceded by a "godly sorrow" which produces its repentance catalyst. What I am suggesting is that this "provocation to jealousy" will be such a catalyst for such a "godly sorrow".

I hope that I have successfully ascertained that this ultimate salvation of Israel, is not an attempted deviation from orthodoxy. It is an eschatological scenario which hinges on the "death, burial and resurrection" of the very nation of Israel.

RobertW wrote:
I am trying to understand why people, in the face of the facts, continue to reject the truth about their own condition- somehow believing (as did Cain) that they can go about to do things 'their way' and still be acceptable with God? Why did the Jews refuse to accept what God says about all human beings- "You are a Sinner".

Should this really ise us:

[b]8[/b] Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here [i]am[/i] I; send me.
[b]9[/b] And he said, Go, and tell this people, [u]Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.[/u]
[b]10[/b] [u]Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.[/u]
[b]11[/b] Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,
[b]12[/b] And the LORD have removed men far away, and [i]there[/i] be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.
[b]13[/b] But yet in it [i]shall[/i] be a tenth, and [i]it[/i] shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose substance is in them, when they cast [i]their leaves: so[/i] the holy seed [i]shall[/i] be the substance thereof.
[b]Is 6:8-13[/b]

What I am suggesting is that this "provocation to jealousy" will be such a catalyst for such a "godly sorrow".

I am thinking of Finney's view in which folk are in one of three states as pertains to the Gospel:

1) Careless
2) Awakened
3) Convicted

It seems that they need to be 'awakened' from their 'careless' state.

In dealing with Isaiah 6 I think it noteworthy that it's almost a commentary on Moses coming down from the Mountain. Moses had his Isaiah 6 experience and in effect so did the people. They saw the awesomeness of God. It was undeniable. They exceedingly feared and quaked. But what is shocking to me is how people can continue to rebel in the very face of God?

Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

But when [i]it[/i] shall turn to the Lord the vail is taken away and the process begins towards salvation. The question then becomes what is the 'IT' that must turn to the Lord? Is it the people Israel or is 'IT' the individual heart of the Jew?

RobertW wrote:
But when [i]it[/i] shall turn to the Lord the vail is taken away and the process begins towards salvation. The question then becomes what is the 'IT' that must turn to the Lord? Is it the people Israel or is 'IT' the individual heart of the Jew?

...or could it simultaneously be both? Firstly, note that Isaiah's words in ch 6 were directed at "this [b]people[/b]", and not to a mere individual (see Strong's H5971). Note also that Jesus referred to Isaiah 6 as the reason for his using of parables.

The answer that God gave to Isaiah for his question, "Lord, how long?" When has there ever been a time which fits the description "...the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be [b]utterly[/b] desolate" perfectly? This tells me that the prophecy, in Isaiah 6, is still in effect, and that it will come to an end.

Again we see "Hellenistic mindedness" influencing our interpretation of Scripture, where we ignore a part to make it fit our partial logic. We have a scenario where Jesus cites his parabolic declarations as a fulfillment of this prophecy, which must be partial, because the conditions of ultimate fulfillment had not been met. And yet, one can see the mercy of God revealed, in that a means of individual illumination is established during the interim period of Israel's national hardening of heart.

Again we see "Hellenistic mindedness" influencing our interpretation of Scripture, where we ignore a part to make it fit our partial logic. We have a scenario where Jesus cites his parabolic declarations as a fulfillment of this prophecy, which must be partial, because the conditions of ultimate fulfillment had not been met.

I'm certainly no preterest, but do you see the destruction of ed. Jerusalem in 70 and the subsequent destruction of the Temple as a possible interpretation? I know you mention 'partial' but it is almost unfathomable that the conditions in Jerusalem could get worse than in 70 and 135 AD. The Zealots were so insane and the people hungry that people hid food in their homes and the Zealots would dash in if they thought someone was cooking and snatch out the food before the person could swallow it. Unparalleled famine and suffering from what I have read. Cannibalism took place even.

So when I am listening to Art and what you are saying I am trying to come to terms with how:

1) We as the Church could improve on the love and expression of Christ that the New Testament book of acts displayed.

2) How the suffering could be topped - i.e. the suicides at Masada, the famine induced cannibalism, and the utter destruction and plowing under of Jerusalem and the Temple in particular.

Any thoughts?

This is a lot of scripture at one post, but it completes what you are saying Robert.

1 John 2:12-29 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

It is the Holy Spirit that makes the difference in us from the promise of Christ even before the Cross. He The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. That Truth being the Christ that is in us, He is the One that makes the difference of those that now believe.

Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1Jo 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

This is why all those that believe, do believe.

Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Jhn 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

Hbr 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself

Israel believed not. Those that do are because the Comforter is come.

John 16:7-14 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

In Christ: Phillip

Robert wrote:

Quote: """1) We as the Church could improve on the love and expression of Christ that the New Testament book of acts displayed"""

What a true statement. Peter's church, the first Pentecostal Church, went down hill very quickly. The killing of Stephen then all the problems and finally Paul. Paul finally gave up on the Jews.

Acts 28:27-31 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

This is our place now, and we need to preach Paul's Gospel, that is "Christ in you the Hope of Glory". The Church has become liken unto Israel and gotten off the central theme of Christ being the only way of life for all that believe.

The Holy Spirit is waiting with the truth and will show us all things, if we only seek the face of God and the Christ that is in us. Maybe this will come true in these end times.

Galatians 2:14-18 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

We cannot take up again the plight of Israel and justify ourselves because of Christ, we must believe that He is the Justifier and He is the wisdom and righteousness we have and this only can we seek.

Galatians 2:19-20 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Law is so deceiving and we must realize the justification is of Christ.

1 Corinthians 1:29-31 That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

In Christ: Phillip

RobertW wrote:
I'm certainly no preterest, but do you see the destruction of ed. Jerusalem in 70 and the subsequent destruction of the Temple as a possible interpretation? I know you mention 'partial' but it is almost unfathomable that the conditions in Jerusalem could get worse than in 70 and 135 AD.
****
So when I am listening to Art and what you are saying I am trying to come to terms with how:

1) We as the Church could improve on the love and expression of Christ that the New Testament book of acts displayed.

2) How the suffering could be topped - i.e. the suicides at Masada, the famine induced cannibalism, and the utter destruction and plowing under of Jerusalem and the Temple in particular.

Any thoughts?

I say this very cautiously, aware of the possible implications of such a statement: Could it be that you are allowing you own intellectual logic to confine your interpretation of Scripture, rather than allowing for the possibility that it will offend that very logic? Remember that we are discussing a time of which Jesus said "Unless it be cut short, none shall survive" (paraphrased).

Regarding my careful use of the word "partial", may I direct your attention back to my second post in this thread:

CJaKfOrEsT wrote:
(2007/6/7)
Spiritualising is not a bad thing, in itself, as long as it doesn't replace the plain reading of Scripture, but rather enhances it. J Jacob Prasch teaches much on Jewish Hermeneutics, or Midrash. The summary of this, is that the Jews would read the verse plainly, but then look into the allegoric implications of the plain statement, in order to understand the depth of the statement.

Understanding this concept can be helpful in understanding prophetic literature, in that successive fulfillments occur, each being more and more precisely matching the ultimate fulfilment. Because of this, events such as Israel's return to their land under Nehemiah and again in 1948, serve as a shadow of an ultimate return, when the "Law shall go forth out of Zion", and "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares" and "learn war no more". This component of their return is as yet unfulfilled, and therefore there must be an ultimate fulfilment to come, after a later diaspora.

The mere fact that they still "hear but misundrstand, and see but not perceive" is evidence that 70 and 135AD could not be the [b]ultimate[/b] fulfilment, in spite of [b]foreshadowing[/b] such a fulfillment.

In order to explain, I will extrapolate some information from Prasch's article [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=5497&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Future History of the Church[/url]:

Western Protestant exegesis interprets prophecy in one of four different ways: Preterism, Historicism, Polemicism, or Futurism.
...
Liberals love [b]Preterism[/b]; they say, "There is no God, and even if there was He wouldn't know the future, and even if He did He certainly wouldn't tell Isaiah." Therefore, in their minds when Isaiah predicts events concerning King Cyrus 200 years before their occurrence
...
The second, [b]Historicism[/b], is what Kingdom-Now people prefer. The Reformers were also greatly inclined toward this view. Historicism says, "The eschatological prophecies of the New Testament were completely fulfilled in the early church."
...
The third way of interpreting prophecy is [b]Polemicism[/b]. Polemicism says: "The book of Revelation is only given to encourage Christians during times of persecution. It reminds them of the glory to come and the judgment of their persecutors, and is thus designed to encourage them.
...
The fourth method of interpreting prophecy is [b]Futurism[/b], which states that these things are going to happen in the Last Days.

To a Western Gentile mind, using [b]Protestant hermeneutics which are Hellenistic in orientation[/b] for reasons I cannot go into here, [b]one of these four methods is the true one. The question is concerning which one you support[/b]: are you a Preterist, a Historicist, a Polemicist, or a Futurist? [b]A Jew in the first century, however, [u]would have been all four simultaneously[/u], as Jesus was Himself[/b].

In Matthew 24:15-33 Jesus says that when you see the Abomination of Desolations spoken of by the prophet Daniel, then you will know the End is near. The problem is that the Abomination of Desolations spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24 and in Luke 21, the Olivet Discourse had already happened before He mentioned it. Jesus celebrated Hanukah in John 10, the Feast of Dedication. He knew all about Antiochus Epiphanes setting up the image in the Temple, the pigs being slaughtered in the Temple, and the Temple being reconsecrated by the Maccabees. The Abomination of Desolations prophesied by Daniel had already happened during the intertestamental period, but Jesus took that event and prophesied that it would happen again. Jesus used [b]Preterism[/b]: He took a past event and spoke about it in the future tense.

Then there is [b]Historicism[/b]: Once again, look at the Abomination of Desolations as prophesied by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. When you read Josephus and discover how the Romans destroyed the Temple and set up pagan ensigns on the Temple Mount and worshiped them, you see that it was an Abomination of Desolations. Then, in the second century, the Emperor Hadrian built a city called the Aerolinas Capitolina, putting a temple of Jupiter on the Temple Mount. Yet another Abomination of Desolations. Julian the Apostate, the nephew of Constantine who tried to re-paganize the Roman Empire, tried to rebuild the Temple, and all these mysterious fires broke out on the Temple Mount; another Abomination of Desolations. Today on the Temple Mount, we have the Mosque of Omar, the Dome of the Rock. On the outside of it, around its periphery, is inscribed a quotation from a surah in the Koran, which is translated: "God has no son". That is still another Abomination of Desolations.

Yet there is still an Abomination of Desolations to come. All of these preceding ones typify the one that is coming. The point is this: Western ideas of prophecy involve prediction and fulfillment. The Hebrew idea of prophecy is a pattern that is recapitulated; multiple fulfillment with one ultimate fulfillment - that is how Jewish prophecy was understood. Each of the multiple fulfillment is a type of and teaches something about the ultimate one.

When Matthew writes his Nativity narrative he says of Jesus, "Out of Egypt I have called My Son," (Matt. 2:15) quoting from Hosea chapter 11:1. The problem with this is that when you read Hosea chapter 11, you find that Hosea was talking about the Exodus, when the children of Israel came out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. Yet Matthew takes this, seemingly out of all context, and applies it to Jesus. However, the [b]problem is not that Matthew took it out of context, but that the Western church has taken a Jewish book and constructed its own rules of context[/b]. Matthew thought midrashically; he thought of prophecy as pattern. Let me explain:

It begins with Abraham. God judged Pharaoh, and Abraham came out of Egypt along with his descendants in Genesis; Abraham is the archetype, the father of all who believe. Then, in Exodus, God again judges Pharaoh - the wicked king gets judged - and once again Abraham's descendants come out of Egypt. Thus the pattern begins; what happened to Israel replayed what happened first to Abraham. Just as Abraham received money from Pharaoh, so the Israelites plundered the Egyptians in Exodus. Next, Jesus comes out of Egypt, after once again the wicked king - Herod this time - is judged. Midrashically, Israel alludes to Jesus. When you see things in Scripture such as "Israel My glory, Israel My first-born son", it is a midrashic allusion to the Messiah, as even the rabbis know. Therefore, Jesus, the embodiment of Israel, also comes out of Egypt. Just as the church is the Body of Christ, so is Israel in some sense. Then, in I Corinthians 10, we come out of Egypt ourselves! Egypt is a figure of this world; Pharaoh is a figure of the devil, who is the god of this world. And just as Moses goes onto the mountain and makes a covenant with blood on behalf of the people, so does Jesus. Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt, through the water, and into the Promised Land. Jesus leads us out of the world, through baptism, and into Heaven. One is a type of the other; we all have an Exodus experience. But the ultimate meaning is the resurrection and rapture of the church: the same judgments that take place in the book of Exodus are replayed in the book of Revelation. In the same way that Pharaoh's magicians were able to counterfeit the miracles of Moses and Aaron, the Antichrist and his False Prophet will be able to counterfeit the miracles of Jesus and His witnesses. Why is the song of Miriam ('I will sing unto the Lord, for He has triumphed gloriously - the horse and the rider are thrown into the sea!") - sung in Revelation? The book of Exodus shows us that the destruction of Pharaoh was a typology of the destruction of the devil. Why did the Israelites bring Joseph's bones with them out of Egypt, at the front of the procession? As the scriptures tell us in I Thessalonians 4:16, 17, "the dead in Christ will rise first", and we will shall come out together.

What a true statement. Peter's church, the first Pentecostal Church, went down hill very quickly.

Robert wrote:

Quote: """1) We as the Church could improve on the love and expression of Christ that the New Testament book of acts displayed"""

Just as a point of clarification I was asking here, in effect, if it is even possible that we could improve the Church beyond the early years in the Book of Acts. Seems to me that things were pretty much hitting on all cylinders. There were some issues to be dealt with- but things seems to be moving along very much as designed.

My other point is that the suffering and death of the Jewish people and their subsequent banishment from the land in 70 and 135 were exceedingly horrific circumstances. I think the only way the suffering could be advanced would be to imploy some means of torture(s) that would take the people to and beyond the very limits of human tolerance. The level to which I am referring would have to be utterly diabolic and unprecedented in human history. Man has wielded every weapon against his enemy- what could be left? Moreover on a strictly natural level, with Israel sitting on several thermonuclear weapons will they take such persecution lying down?

Just trying to think through all this...

Likewise, is the "ALL" Israel means "ALL" Israel? Whether they believe or not?

I would have to say absolutely no. That would run completely contrary to the gospel and would result in a sort of Jewish Universalism. It would run counter to our Lord and Paul's teaching on who is and is not a child of Abraham or of the 'circumcision'. If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he (she) is none His.

dorcas wrote:
Hi Compliments (you said)
Likewise, is the "ALL" Israel means "ALL" Israel? Whether they believe or not?

RobertW said
I would have to say absolutely no.

I agree. Believing is the pivot for any Christian claim.

"..."ALL" Israel means "ALL" Israel..."
...is the "what",
"Believing is the pivot for any Christian claim"
...is the how

The question is, "What is the why?"

The why is God's everlasting covenant, which has attached to it mutual requirement. God cannot honour His promise to restore the nation of Israel, while they are still unbelieving, and maintain His integrity, at the same time. In His mercy, He has orchestrated a series of events which will serve to chastise His people, chosen over other nations, based purely on His Sovereign will, and not any merit on their part. Israel's chastisement will also serve as the basis for God's wrath being poured out on the nations, who will be brought to account for their participation in Jacob's Trouble, which will occur as a result of God's lifting His restraining influence, stop the full expression of their latent anti-Semitic desire.

The irony is that the reason for this chastisement is the very basis of God's making available His Sovereign grace to the Gentiles, which is their wholesale rejection of God as a nation. The second irony is that, in turning against His chosen nation, the Gentiles will have ultimately rejected the God who would actually choose a such nation. Even the insistence that God has rejected Israel in favour of the church, is in part a rejection of "that" God (and I say this very cautiously). Inserted into this is the comprehension of a God who, as well as judging individuals, also judges nations.

Perhaps at the the heart of this deduction is a failure to consider what the Church actually is. And perhaps this failure could be seen as ignorance of the mystery of Israel and the Church. Israel is a [b]nation of humanity[/b], while the Church is completely [b]different species of being[/b]. Israel is God's chosen component of what is "[b]Adamic[/b]", while the Church is the entirety of all that is "[b]Christian[/b]". Israel is [b]not Gentile[/b], while the Church's new creation is made up of [b]both Jewish and Gentile[/b] exiles (aliens, sojourners). Israel is a [b]temporal provision[/b], while the Church is an [b]eternal reality[/b].

The reason why "all Israel" can be saved, is because those who He has not foreordained for salvation will have already perished at this point. Perhaps some will not have begun to believe yet, but they will, purely because God had foreordained for them to do so, just as He did us, and the fact that they will be set apart for this salvation, before they have met the conditions of it, will serve as a final undeniable expression of the Sovereignty of God. Not that these conditions won't be met, but they will follow the opportunity presented to them to meet these conditions, which will be denied to those who were not ordained. And so "all Israel" is really "some of Israel", but at the same time, it [b]shall[/b] be "all Israel", at the time of its occurrence.

I can understand how the notion of unbelieving Jews being offered salvation, in spite of there unbelief, could be totally unfathomable, just as I can understand how an Atheist and a Muslim believe what they do. Just as with them, I am attempting to show that ignorance of "this mystery" is based on partial truths and/or a failure to consider the full ramifications of others. Interestingly, by this statement, I'm reminded of Chuck Missler's continual insistence of the Bible being an "integrated message system". Missler sees a Time of Jacob's Trouble, as being inseparably connected to the Great Tribulation, and yet cannot get past believing in a pretrib rapture, possibly due to his training under Hal Lindsay, and his association with Calvary Chapel, and therefore would remove the Church from its role in this cosmic drama.

Oh how I wish I had opportunity to truly dialogue each point, allowing your interruptions as necessary. Unfortunately, we have not this luxury, and so I will continue to feel and fumble for a more perfect expression of this theme. Granted also that I have taken a "hypothetical approach" in the presentation of this mystery, hoping that, as the Bereans, you will "search the Scriptures to see if it be so".

Thank you for enduring with me. :-)

GrannieAnnie wrote:
The Church will see the tribulation and not just The Jews.
That is an almost or is, a sadder ignorance on the part of "the church" as what the true Israel is going through now ... until Messiah comes.

Thank you for putting the inverted commas around the words "the church", and putting "true" in front of Israel. It was a final addendum for me to put capitalise the "C" in Church, which is something which I normally do not do. I see that this decision was not lost on you :cry:.

Could it be, in light of my last post, that ignorance of the mystery could result in the [b]c[/b]hurch falling for the strong delusion of rejecting Israel in its time of extremity, by being selective of who they offer sanctuary too? "I'm sorry, I can't have you stay here, because you are not Messianic", could become a catch cry, as the strong delusion takes grip, that Israel is guilty of theocide.

Certainly I am merely being speculative, and have no clear Scriptural precede to point toward for this statement, but it is certainly within the realms of possibility. One need only look toward Germany in the 1930-40s for precedent. Few even consider the fact that Hitler rose to power in 1933 and died in 1945, meaning that Nazi-ism's rise to and fall from power spanned only within twelve years. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote "The Church and the Jewish Question" in 1933, so obviously the anti-Semitic influence began at the onset. Such a work would not have been necessary if the church hadn't bought into the lie.

In other words, the German church was duped into such a deception since the start of Nazi rule. It was not a matter of "gradual decline" but it happened suddenly. One need only look around and see many, even in the church, who question the existence of the Holocaust, and subtly tolerate occult themes, through Hollywood and television. Pre-Nazi Germany held a similar kind of fascination, the only difference was the media, which was literature. Hannah Newman's book "[url=http://philologos.org/__eb-trs/naF.htm]The Rainbow Swastika[/url]", goes contains some excellent research on this theme.

Perhaps you might think, "Hey I will be alright. I know God and read my Bible", but consider that your Bible says that ignorance of this mystery could mean the possibility that you become "wise in your own conceits", and that when you think you stand stand, to take heed lest you fall.

Hence "knowing therefore the terror of the Lord" I seek to "persuade mean (and women, for that matter;-))".

In other words, the German church was duped into such a deception since the start of Nazi rule. It was not a matter of "gradual decline" but it happened suddenly. One need only look around and see many, even in the church, who question the existence of the Holocaust, and subtly tolerate occult themes, through Hollywood and television. Pre-Nazi Germany held a similar kind of fascination, the only difference was the media, which was literature. Hannah Newman's book "The Rainbow Swastika", goes contains some excellent research on this theme.

I guess then one of the questions becomes- "To what extent will Christians be expected to come to the aid of the Jews?" Will they be required to take up arms and possibly kill people? The reason I ask this is because every year in our nation some 1,000,000 babies die in their mothers womb from abortion- even so-called 'late term' abortions to the 9th month have been performed just this year. Christians are told to peacefully protest and work through the legislators and courts to deal with it. If Christians take such a [i]passive[/i] approach towards saving unborn babies- how will they ever put themselves in harms way or 'stand up' for the Jews? Just a question in my mind?

I live within walking distance of Harry S. Truman's home. Many times as I drive by his house or presidential library I am reminded of his role in Israel as a nation state. I think of the multiplied millions of dollars of aid that has been sent by the gov't alone- not including private donations to groups such as, "On Wings As Eagles" helping Russian Jews make Aliyah. I think about the sharing of thermonuclear technology and their subsequent perfection of various weapons including F series combat aircraft. I think of Jay Sekulow, John Hagee, and a host of others who press hard for the support of Israel and even have present petitions of solidarity that Americans can sign to stand with Israel.

My question is, how will such a persecution take place that would negate the present weaponry of Israel? They have never had trouble defeating their enemies when left alone. Does Art and others believe that Israel will be destroyed and that the battle will be taken from house to house around the globe? If so, then what could the role possibly be of an ordinary Christian who may know no Jews whatsoever? Moreover, my eschatological understanding of the end times is that the AntiChrist will seek to administer the mark of the Beast to ALL. Seems to me that folk will be pretty occupied with saving their own skin and the issue will not be who is a Jew- but who [u]don't[/u] have the Mark of the Beast? Those are the ones that the AntiChrist is coming after (Rev. 13). :-?

Quote:

"""Perhaps at the the heart of this deduction is a failure to consider what the Church actually is. And perhaps this failure could be seen as ignorance of the mystery of Israel and the Church. Israel is a nation of humanity, while the Church is completely different species of being. Israel is God's chosen component of what is "Adamic", while the Church is the entirety of all that is "Christian". Israel is not Gentile, while the Church's new creation is made up of both Jewish and Gentile exiles (aliens, sojourners). Israel is a temporal provision, while the Church is an eternal reality."""

Israel is a created nation and the Church the Body of Christ is a birthed Body of Christ. The Church the Body of Christ is made up of new creatures in Christ Jesus. Birthed son's of God.

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

Gal 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

1 Peter 1:22-24 Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

Israel under a created being Satan The Church under the birthed Son of God Jesus Christ and each individual a birthed son by the Seed of the Father as Christ was of Mary by the Holy Spirit.
And sealed.

In Christ: Phillip

Dorcus, The fact that Jesus took captive the patriarchs tells me that the Jews in some way must come through Jesus.
...is this correct?......David

Christinyou wrote:
[b]Israel under a created being Satan[/b] The Church under the birthed Son of God Jesus Christ and each individual a birthed son by the Seed of the Father as Christ was of Mary by the Holy Spirit.
And sealed. (emphasis added)

Would be interested in knowing how you draw this conclusion.

RobertW wrote:
I think of the multiplied millions of dollars of aid that has been sent by the gov't alone- not including private donations to groups such as, "On Wings As Eagles" helping Russian Jews make Aliyah.

Firstly, Art and Reggie are highly vocal in declaring that Aliyah is premature, and would actually dissuade Jews from returning before Jacob's Trouble is completed.

My question is, how will such a persecution take place that would negate the present weaponry of Israel? They have never had trouble defeating their enemies when left alone.

Does Art and others believe that Israel will be destroyed and that the battle will be taken from house to house around the globe? If so, then what could the role possibly be of an ordinary Christian who may know no Jews whatsoever?

Moreover, my eschatological understanding of the end times is that the AntiChrist will seek to administer the mark of the Beast to ALL. Seems to me that folk will be pretty occupied with saving their own skin and the issue will not be who is a Jew- but who [u]don't[/u] have the Mark of the Beast? Those are the ones that the AntiChrist is coming after (Rev. 13).

Compliments wrote:
It's so plain and so simple, and yet Scofield and Darby's false teachings are still alive in the hearts and minds of so many :-?

I realise that this post wasn't directed at me, but I am still trying to figure out why you are referencing Darby and Scofield? It would seem that what you are suggesting is a kind of dispensationalism, in that you would have Israel's time be finished and the church's begin.

What we are suggesting is that God is not finished with Israel as a nation, and at the same time He has ordained the established a "peculiar people", which is the Church, consisting of people from every tribe and tongue, both Jew and Gentile. Where is the dispensationalism in that?

Also both Annie and I have stated our denial of a pretribulational rapture, which is foundational to Darby's theology, and presenting a scenario which explains why the Church is present through such suffering. Both Darby and Scofield would be "turning in their grave" over such statements.

Quote:

Would be interested in knowing how you draw this conclusion.

Jhn 8:44 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.

John 8:46-48 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?

Even Jesus said they were of Satan. They retaliated He hast a devil.

The Israel of Christ and His Kingdom.

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Jhn 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Christ is the Word and the Incorruptable Seed.
As the Seed of God of Christ in Mary, by the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

The one who seals Christ into us, Born Again.

2Cr 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also [trusted], after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

This Spirit and Seed is Christ.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Christ our Glory, our birthing, into a birthed Church the Body of Christ His Church.

Colossians 3:1-4 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Israel under a created being Satan The Church under the birthed Son of God Jesus Christ and each individual a birthed son by the Seed of the Father as Christ was of Mary by the Holy Spirit.
And sealed. (emphasis added)

In Christ: Phillip

I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up Darby, when there is evidence of the Byzantine Priests teaching the Pre-Trib Rapture, and there is plenty of evidence that the 1st century church preached the doctrine of imminency.

Paul Andrews, in 'The Byzantine Apolyptic Tradition', 1985, quotes a sermon by a Byzantine Priest that may have been called Ephraim, but one can't be sure, so is called Pseudo-Ephaim. The sermon is entitled 'On Last Times, The Anti-Christ, and The End of the World.'

Since the document is dated between 374 a.d. and 627 a.d., it seems a bit odd to continually focus on Darby. And Scofield wasn't alive to see this late archeological discovery, so that absolves him, but I suggest you all keep up with Archeological Digest, or at least the Rapture sites.

I myself am considerably interested in Seal #5 in Revelation, in which nothing happens at all on earth, but white robes, denoting righteousness, are given to the protesting Martyrs in heaven.

You see, for a seal to be opened and for nothing to happen but robes of righteousness being handed out is very strange indeed.

[color=993300]Rev. 6:9. And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
10. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11. And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.[/color]

There are promises in the Bible of the rapiemur, from the Latin rapturo that our hope is in, and the promise that is made to those who watch, and strive for the prize daily, that they will be taken out of the way of, or caught away from the wrath to come.

[color=993300]Revelation 2:7. And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
8. I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
9. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
13. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.[/color]

I believe this may be a figure of the rapture, because of the robes of righteousness given out, and those that are to be killed in the Tribulation, are the great harvest of Saints.

The fact that they rest a while doesn't mean those other Saints, dead and alive at the time this seal, or any other time of God's choosing, cannot be caught away.

Jacob Prasch prefers the sixth seal, for instance, as that is when the wrath begins.
The 6th seal starts out with a lot going on.

[color=993300]Revelation 6:12. And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16. And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17. For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?[/color]

It really is rather irrelevant. God will come when He will come, and I'd just as soon it was sooner than later. But I am prepared for the opposite.

Still, Paul promised it to us, and as I have been reminded on another thread, Paul had God's warrant to speak. So I believe him, and will rest in that comfort of this mystery of the Church.

[color=993300]1 Corinthians 15:51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56. The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.[/color]

I also happen to think that the rapiemur is a last warning to those not walking the walk, but are cultural Christians to get their lives in order, and figure out how to live with no money, no property, and no rights, with demons on your tracks, after the Anti-Christ proclaims himself god.

It's always been of interest to me how any Christians can escape the death warrant God gives Lucifer, when he has carte blanche to chase us down everywhere, kill us, and has plenty of demons to help him.

And with the new RFID inks for tattoos, I don't think fake Marks are going to work.

The Trib is not about us, the sincere believers, no matter how young in Christ, but is about those that come to truly believe what we have been trying to tell them for years because we disappear, as we told them we would, and they see what we have been saying come to pass.

And then, it's the Time of Jacob's touble, of which perhaps 1/6 of those Jews living now, and a few Christians that are protected along with them, in what ever way God is going to do that, actually survive to walk into the Millenium.

I place my hope in the Blessed Hope of Christ's returning in the clouds, for He says it to us through Paul. But I signed on for jail and heaven knows what else when I was ordained, and started a web ministry.

Either way, I should get Home pretty soon.

Blessings,

Forrest

edit: deleted.

The Time of Jacob's Trouble will begin in Jerusalem and emanates from there to the nations. And so we have a global persecution of Israel, where they are sifted through the nations.

I am trying to come to terms with exactly who the Antichrist will be after in those days. It would seem to me that he would be after the Church. What is the point of attacking an unbelieving people who if left alone are destined for eternal hell in the worst of ways.

For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. And when he had thus spoken, he went before, ascending up to Jerusalem. (Luke 19:26-28)

Jerusalem, of course, being emblematic of the seat of governance. On His way to Jerusalem, the place from which He would rule and reign, He gives this saying. This is almost a prophecy. I think it is certainly not an idle threat.

My questions is, why would the enemy seek to jeopardize the condition of the unbelieving Jews knowing that those who reject Christ's authority will suffer such a fate? It would seem that he would seek to lull them into a slumber and let them slip into eternity quietly.

On the other hand, it makes perfect sense why he would seek to destroy the believers and drive them to unbelief. Moreover, it is impossible to sift a person that does not have faith because the whole point of 'sifting' is to riddle the mind with a question that causes the person to loose their faith. Peter was sifted, no doubt, by the fact that the Messiah was taken and beaten and crucified. The Messianic concept of a Kingly Messiah (Messiah like unto David) crumbled before his mind and, I believe, this was the crux of the sifting that Peter suffered. The whole event from the Garden to the Cross was one huge confusion for him. Peter's faith did not fail. So then how can an unbeliever be sifted? Why would the enemy want to sift any unbeliever when he runs the risk of them turning to God during the calimity?

ALright, Israel is in need of some light to dispel darkness about Daniel being preserved out of the Lion's den and here is 2nd Peter 3
10 Nevertheless the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in the which day, the heavens shall perish with terrible noise, and the elements shall melt with heat, and the earth with the works that are therein shall burn.
11 ¶ If all these things shall perish, what manner persons ought ye to be in holy conversation, and godliness:
12 looking for, and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, in which the heavens shall perish with fire, and the elements shall be consumed with heat.
13 Nevertheless we look for a new heaven, and a new earth, according to his promise, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

There is much to Daniel and ye cannot let false prophets muddle the prophecie of the seven weeks
Try the Easyreading Matthew's text and submit yourselves!
Daniel 9
25 Understand this then, and mark it well: that from the time it shall be concluded, to go and repair Jerusalem again, unto Christ (or the anointed) Prince: there shall be seven weeks. Then shall the streets and walls be builded again sixty two weeks, but with hard troublous time.
26 After these sixty two weeks, shall Christ be slain, and they shall have no pleasure in him. Then shall there come a people with the prince, and destroy the city and the Sanctuary: and his end shall come as the water flood. But the desolation shall continue till the end of the battle.
27 He shall make a strong bond with many, for the space of a week: and when the week is half gone, he shall put down the slain and meat offering. And in the temple there shall be an abominable desolation, till it have destroyed all. And it is concluded, that this wasting shall continue unto the end.

If you still believe me not that Israel chosen, precious and elect, whome does not teach men's commandments, neither recieved the gospel under the hand of any man, but free, as we make the gospel of Christ.
If you believe lowly me, Visit and listen to my 1 minute stronghold pulling down sermons at :

[url=http://www.geocities.com/dethhead2000/meeknesstemperancy.html]Tarry Merritt who fell on the rock[/url]

GrannieAnnie wrote:
So these four - The Lion, The Bear, The Leopard (or Panther) and The Diverse Beast are all contemporary to "those days" ... they "shall" rise in "those days" to an end time power UNTIL the Ancient of days comes and with the Saints possess the Kingdom.
...
If you line these 4 beasts side by side with the 4 horsemen, the picture will clear all the more.

I also wonder if you have ever considered overlapping Nebuchadnezzar's image with your conclusions regarding Daniel's four beasts? This would mean comparing:
Babylon with the US and its Masonic influences.
Persia with Russia
Greece with Germany
Rome with the UN and whatever may replace it.

Some thoughts come to mind in merely making the statement. Perhaps would be more appropriate in another thread, but I'm sure some of the outcomes will filter back into this one.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, consideration could be given to these nations' involvement in the persecution of Israel.

UniqueWebRev wrote:
I don't know why everyone keeps bringing up Darby, when there is evidence of the Byzantine Priests teaching the Pre-Trib Rapture, and there is plenty of evidence that the 1st century church preached the doctrine of imminency.

Paul Andrews, in 'The Byzantine Apolyptic Tradition', 1985, quotes a sermon by a Byzantine Priest that may have been called Ephraim, but one can't be sure, so is called Pseudo-Ephaim. The sermon is entitled 'On Last Times, The Anti-Christ, and The End of the World.'

Darby and Scofield are pointed to, because they popularised dispensationalism. Before them was Edward Irving and Margaret MacDonald. Prior to that there was Fr. Manuel de Lacunza. Before that Morgan Edwards wrote a hypothetical peice, which he distanced himself from. Again earlier, Fr Francisco Ribera. Each of these form a continuum which peaked with Darby and Scofield.

[color=993300]Revelation 2:7. And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
8. I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
9. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
10. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11. Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
13. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.[/color]

Firstly, this is a letter written to a literal church, and that church has had it "lampstand removed", in that it doesn't exist today, as it did then. Secondly, even if this can be interpreted in some kind of dispensational way, the promise "I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" could be about the "temptation" and not the actual events which cause the temptation.

Being in a family situation which has been extremely chaotic, at times, involving deep expressions of hatred from my spouse, and separation, and even outright rejection, from family members, spanning over extended periods of time, the Lord has shown me a thing or two about having my "condition" and "life" be separated from the situations that I am placed in. To be able to see scenarios of utter extremity, which have to potential to lead one to despair of life, and yet come to the point of seeing that very situation as a provision of God's mercy, to myself personally, and my family as a unit, for our tempering and betterment, is to be "kept from the temptation" to blame God, and give up hope. In fact, faith is tempered and proven in such circumstances, which transforms that which would be a temptation to a mortal nature, into that which is edifying to the eternal nature within, and leads to it taking a place of greater significance, than that which is "seen", and therefore merely "temporal" (2 Cor 4:18 - taken in context of the rest of ch 4).

And with the new RFID inks for tattoos, I don't think fake Marks are going to work.

During the persecutions under the Roman Empire, the issue was the declaration that "Caesar is lord", which was to be made on the "lord's day". Certificates were given, and there were some who bribed governors to gain certification, without making the actual declaration. This became a contentious issue, for one could say that in receiving the certificate, one receives the intended meaning of the certificate, and might as well have made the declaration.

So whether the mark that is "received" is real or counterfeit, perhaps the eternal consequence would be the same. No wonder this requires wisdom, and understanding, which begins with a departure from foolishness, into the fear of the Lord.

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

This is in reference to Isa 59:20

Isaiah 59:20 (KJV) And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.

[b]ALL ISRAEL means the twelve tribes of Jacob / Israel. Remember, only two tribes were able to return (Judah & Benjamin). The other ten tribes were exiled and never returned.[/b]

When I was pondering on this verse with God (specifically the phrase "All Israel") as I was listening to Art Katz preaching on Romans 11, this thought came to me "ALL ISRAEL means the twelve tribes of Jacob / Israel." Take note, Paul did not say "Israel shall be saved" but he said "ALL Israel shall be saved"

I believe Paul was saying that God will bring to salvation people from each tribe. [b]With the thought of missing 10 tribes, it seems that God has forgotten them. God is not finish with the other 10 tribes; God has not forgotten the other 10 tribes. [/b]

So, Paul alluded the passage in Isa 59:20. "Jacob" in this verse refers to the 12 tribes not only 2 tribes. So "ALL Israel" shall be saved.

Although I don't have time to elaborate right now, what Paul was saying was that at some point in the future, literally all living Israelites would have salvation. That is, during the 1000 year reign, Israel would actually really serve its function as the witnesses of God to the Nations.

Compliments wrote:
There is no place in the scriptures that the LORD is going to regather Israel the third time. He gathered them once out of Babylon to rebuild Jerusalem, and He gathered them again out of all nations the second time to Pentecost.

While you may be right, have you been through every single prophecy of Israel's return and asked if every condition has been met? For example, when we look at Joel's prophecy, of which Peter stated "this is that", one can see that not every part of the very statement quote was fulfilled. Even to simply look at Isaiah's statements of the "Law going forth from Zion", and "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and shall learn war no more", and one can see that their is further yet to come.

It is a Hellenistic approach to view prophecy as mere "prediction and fulfillment", and as a result, many miss God. The Hebraic method of interpretation, which both Jesus and Paul utilised, seeing "successive fulfillments", each coming closer to the ultimate.

Replacement Theology is an insidious cancer which left unchecked, will lead to far greater atrocities that Dachau and Auschwitz. I'm and not trying to brand those who embrace Replacement Theology as being Anti-Semites, but those who will inherit their views will ultimately be lead to such a logical conclusion.

GreenLantern wrote:
Although I don't have time to elaborate right now, what Paul was saying was that at some point in the future, literally all living Israelites would have salvation. That is, during the 1000 year reign, Israel would actually really serve its function as the witnesses of God to the Nations.

In fact, this event of Israel's salvation, will be a significant marker or His imminent return. It could be possible that Jesus words "it is not for you to know the times and dates", to the disciples in response to their asking if at "that time" (the day of Pentecost) will be when He restores the throne of David on the earth, meant that this fulfillment had not yet occurred. The emphasis could be "not for you" but it may be for those who are here in the time of Israel's salvation, coming after their ultimate Time of Trouble.

And considering that this discussion was really about Christ's return, we can see a similitude between the Pharisees' view that there will come two people (Suffering Servant/Messianic King), not realise that the two were one in the same, come at different times, and the view that Israel's restoration is an ultimate "not yet", preceded by a preliminary fulfillment. It is interesting to note that the Acts 2 fulfillment occurred in a time of greatness, and self-sufficiency (albeit, under Roman rule), and the ultimate will occur in a time of their utter barrenness, which means the complete reversal of the time of their Meshiach's coming.

Just a thought.

Compliments said:
Why would Paul say "All Israel Shall Be Saved" knowing full well that the scriptures teaches that a remnant would be saved.

Paul seems to be contradicting himself, and I have heard others in this thread say that "All" means the whole of nation of Israel would be saved in the last days, yet both Paul and the Old Testement speak of a Remnant.

I am sure Paul, when saying "ALL" he was referring to the elect Jews, "such as should be saved".

Romans 9:27 (KJV) Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a [b]remnant shall be saved:[/b]

I see no contradiction, remnant means few. It may be ALL the 12 tribes but it is still few in a sense that not all the population/number of each tribe.

As you can see I am not scholar nor well knowleable in the Bible as most of the SI members but just an interesting passage that I consider a good example as to "being remnant (few in numbers) yet ALL (the 12 tribes)."

Revelation 7:4 (KJV) And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

Rev 7:5-8, shows that 12 thousand each tribe. I see this as remnant in each tribe and putting it all, still a remnant of Israel.

This might lead to another discussion but I wont go into that. I am aware there is an issue regarding the names of the 12 tribes in this passage.

Corey_H wrote:
As Vance Havner said in one of his sermons (available here on SI):

"There are two types of people in the world; Christians and everybody else."

CJaKfOrEsT wrote: (2007/6/23 23:58)
Perhaps at the the heart of this deduction (*EDIT* that Israel has been replaced by "the church") is a failure to consider what the Church actually is. And perhaps this failure could be seen as ignorance of the mystery of Israel and the Church. Israel is a [b]nation of humanity[/b], while the Church is completely [b]different species of being[/b]. Israel is God's chosen component of what is "[b]Adamic[/b]", while the Church is the entirety of all that is "[b]Christian[/b]". Israel is [b]not Gentile[/b], while the Church's new creation is made up of [b]both Jewish and Gentile[/b] exiles (aliens, sojourners). Israel is a [b]temporal provision[/b], while the Church is an [b]eternal reality[/b].

Corey_H wrote:
I believe the greater error lies in believing in a material imperial kingdom that rules all other material kingdoms on Earth, ruled by a Solomon-type emperor (which the Jews in Jesus' own time hoped for) - and [b]that Israel are "elite" for no reason other than race[/b].

Are we to believe that a certain segment of humanity is blessed over and above the rest of the nations because they were born into a certain ethnicity - without saving faith, conviction, repentance, or baptism? Is Israel still God's favorite?

I feel the need to make the following two notations:

Firstly, there can be the implication that in using to word "chosen" that I refer to something along the lines of Jesus' words, "Many are called, but few are chosen". What I am referring to is something more along the lines of some vessels being chosen for honour, while others for dishonour. Notice that I am careful not to say which it is, because it is both.

Secondly, in using the word "Israel" I am not referring to the city state in the middle east, nor to those who ascribe to a "rabbinical religion", but to the descendants of Jacob, pure and simple.

In considering the "Chosenness of Israel", perhaps consider reading Art Katz' article [url=http://www.benisrael.org/writings/online_books/chosen_people/cp_main.html]The Chosen People: Chosen for What?[/url]

*Edit*Post edited due to poorly constructed sentences that didn't make sense.*Edit*

Compliments wrote:
It's too late Aaron, I have already been branded an Anti-Semitic on the grounds of believing that Israel is not the chosen people of God.

As I too, for my views regarding Israel (see my article [url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=16522&forum=36&post_id=&refresh=Go]Cleansing of the Sanctuary[/url], which was a response to such an accusation). My statement was not referring to "accusations of Anti-Semitism", but an actual condition. It is a fact that many of the German people during the Nazi era were either supporting of Hitler's "final solution", or at least turn a blind eye, in spite of suspecting what was going on. I heard that the Austrians asked if they could kill their own Jews, when the German's came, and the barbarity of their genocidal actions included catching babies on their bayonets, after flinging them into the air.

Among other things, Hitler built his claim against the Jews on Martin Luther's writings, which in turn were built upon inferences regarding Israel's statements during the crucifixion. Note that Jesus prayed that the Father would forgive then, for they knew not what they were doing, Stephen asked that God would not hold his death on their account, and Paul desired that he could be damned, and have the Jews take his place. All the while, we fail to consider God's Divine prerogative to chose.

Consider the story of the prodigal son, his return was based purely on the fact that home was more appealing than the pig-pen. The son was accepted, in spite of his assumption that a service was required of him to be accepted by his father. Note also the response of the other son, as his brother's return was celebrated, in spite of his having squanders his inheritance. The brother at home had something to lose here. For his brother to be welcomed back, he had to relinquish part of what would have been his.

We can see a two-fold illustration here, one of Israel rejecting the church, as they reject their Meshiach and, in turn, are resentful that Gentiles have come be grafted into their vine, through grace alone. Next we can see a latter day church resenting a prodigal Israel being grafted back in, purely because of God's divine prerogative. And here we see the full cycle of Rom 11:24.

Linn,

I didn't respond to your question about Israel and Esau simply because I have no perspective on it at present, and am careful not to just invent things out of mere opinion, but leaning upon what I believe the Lord has shown me over time, and the implications of such. This is not to imply that I have some special "prophetic hotline" to God, but merely to point out the caution with which I approach making a comment. If you have a perspective, please offer it up.

Regarding the Jew/Israel scenario, Judah and Benjamin are a component of Israel, which has has a distinct role within God's cosmic drama, in that they were taken captive by the Babylonians, while Ephraim was invaded by the Assyrians. I'm sure there is significance here, also but have not the time to explore it, at this time.

I do know that there is anti-Semitism in the world. Also, (I know) of anti-Semitism being leveled at 'the Church', but (if I may say) I believe that any anti-semite was automatically disenfranchising him or herself of eternal life by any anti-semitic actions.

All this to say this, Saffran in of Jewish decent. In one episode, he tries to join the Klu Klux Klan, based on the logic that they used to forbid Roman Catholics from joining, so perhaps they'd soften their stance on Israelites. After a highly positive interview with the head of the KKK, Saffran poses the question, "I'm Jewish, but have completely rejected my Judaism. I even eat pork and everything. What are the chances of me joints the KKK?" One minute the man was commenting on how this was one of the best interviews he had given, the next, he was giving emphatic "No"s to every of Saffran's attempts to get around the problem, ultimately leading to John and his crew being kicked off the property.

The Christian need only deny his faith in the face of such "Anti-Semitism", but the is offered no such luxury. His problem is genetic, while ours is ideological.

Linn,

I'm quite shocked at what you have said here. I am concerned for your heart sister, in that you appear to be more concerned with being right, and lean toward thinking negatively toward others, and so miss the intended meaning of their words. Please allow me to publicly clarify what you have claimed that I have said:

The Christian need only deny his faith in the face of such "Anti-Semitism", but the is offered no such luxury. His problem is genetic, while ours is ideological.

I think you may mean 'the Jew is offered...' etc

'The Christian need only [u]deny[/u] his [i][b]faith[/b][/i] in the face of ...' (emphasis mine)

You don't think that new birth is a permanent change to the believer's inner being, such that [u]God[/u] is now his [i]Father?[/i]

In that our flesh is decaying as we write, the change brought about by new birth is eternal.

A born again Jew need not deny his natural birth, but he need not own up to it either. In Christ, it all disappears as much as he needs it to.

I reject the word 'ideological'. I reject the idea that a Christian can retain credibility with God and man, while denying Christ. [i]C'mon...[/i] What are you thinking? !!

Now I ask you, "What are [b]you[/b] thinking?" Why would you think that I deny the Spiritual Birth? Come on Linn, I thought you knew me better than that. I don't know whether to feel insulted or simply misunderstood. To be honest, I feel sorry for you. For some reason you have ignored this statement (which I am quoting for the second time, which means that it will now be contained in this thread three times):

CJaKfOrEsT wrote: (2007/6/23 23:58)
Perhaps at the the heart of this deduction (*EDIT* that Israel has been replaced by "the church") is a failure to consider what the Church actually is. And perhaps this failure could be seen as ignorance of the mystery of Israel and the Church. Israel is a [b]nation of humanity[/b], while the Church is completely [b]different species of being[/b]. Israel is God's chosen component of what is "[b]Adamic[/b]", while the Church is the entirety of all that is "[b]Christian[/b]". Israel is [b]not Gentile[/b], while the Church's new creation is made up of [b]both Jewish and Gentile[/b] exiles (aliens, sojourners). Israel is a [b]temporal provision[/b], while the Church is an [b]eternal reality[/b].

Although I have recently raised the question of who is 'Israel' and who are 'the Jews', throughout the thread until my questions, there has been the assumption by Aaron (and others) that they are the same group of people. And that this ethnicity engages them in something particular to do with the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not how I understand

2007/7/1 16:17
Regarding the Jew/Israel scenario, Judah and Benjamin are [b]a component of[/b] Israel, which has has a distinct role within God's cosmic drama, in that they were taken captive by the Babylonians, while Ephraim was invaded by the Assyrians. I'm sure there is significance here, also but have not the time to explore it, at this time.

Regarding the Jew/Israel track that you are going down, rather than asking loaded questions, designed to trip others in their words, why not just make your statement?

I haven't studied this enough to be able to agree with Aaron's thesis (which seems to be based on the writings of some preachers), because of what I [i]do know so far[/i] about the implications of new birth. I agree with Compliments that the Christian definition of 'a Jew' was re-vamped by Paul, and we should not only note it, but accept it.

It doesn't take one iota away from the "new birth" and in fact gives solidifies the emphasis on the Birth, in that the event of "all Israel being saved" will be a Sovereign event, which is initiated by the Father alone. To imply that the Spiritual Birth is initiated by anyone but God, Himself, is to reduce it to a mere initiation rite, which is incapable of saving anyone, and "Israel's ultimate salvation" will solidify that point to all humanity.

Regarding Paul re-vamping the definition of a Jew, this is blatantly wrong!! Paul merely brought clarity to the statements of the Tanakh, which needed to be purged from Talmudic interpretation. Paul's words "the Israel of God" is not saying that there is a new entity that has replaced the "peculiar people" who have descended from Jacob's loins, but that some of Israel is "of God" and some is not. The give away comes by putting this verse into proper context, "as many as walk according to [u]this rule[/u], peace be on them, and mercy, [u]and upon[/u] the Israel of God." (Gal 6:16) Two things should stand out, firstly the words "and upon" mark a distinction being made between "them" and this "Israel of God". Who is the "them"? The verse speaks for itself "as many as walk according to [u]this promise[/u]". What's "this promise"? Verse 15 makes this clear, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, [u]but a new creature[/u]."

So the "them" is "those who walk according to (the) promise (of) the new creature". But is the "Israel of God" is a reference to the church which has "replaced Israel", then who is the "them"? Does this mean that the church doesn't walk according to the promise of the new creature? And if not, then why make a distinction? Paul is referring to a component of Israel, who is also a component of the Church, where the "them" is the church in a broader context, Jew and Gentile. Same goes for the statement "not all Israel are Israel" (Rom 9:6), which I won't elaborate on at this time.

The thing is, Jesus is described as being "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." (Heb 13:8) He is consistent and unchanging. For example, the Law never saved, but it was the sacrifice that did (incidentally, I love pointing out to Jews that Leviticus starts with the burnt offering). Even then, it was not the sacrifice itself, but the fact that it foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice to come, which was alluded to all through the Tanakh. The was no "all right, it's half time, and I'm gonna change the rules" from God, it's been the same deal since before the foundation of the world.

In fact, Paul's explanation of the workings of the Gospel, in Romans 10, leans heavily on Moses' writings in Deuteronomy and Isaiah's prophecy (It is interesting that Paul quotes Isaiah 53:1, but doesn't go on to verse 5, which gives the best Old Testament description of the Cross, and it's purpose). [b]Moses preached "Paul's Gospel", but the Jews couldn't hear it, and Paul explained why in Rom 11:25[/b]. However, [b]the prophets had already stated why, and how this hardening would occur[/b].

Linn,

Once again you have made assumptions, and have acted upon them without seeking clarification. I avoided answering you earlier questions, because I had no answer. I'm sorry if that wasn't good enough for you. I had pulled away from this discussion, early on, because I found myself doing just that. I came very close to doing so with another who had posted last night until, by God's mercy, I saw a PM in my inbox where that one had clarified themselves to me personally, just before I hit the submit button.

I'll leave it to your conscience, but I feel that some retractions are in order, on your part. I do hope that I haven't offended you with such a statement, but I cannot afford the luxury tip-toeing around such a statement. I feel an increasing sense of urgency over this issue, as is the fate of the very world is at stake. Perhaps I am being a little melodramatic, but that is how I feel about this. I am beginning to feel that I have said all that I can here. I have personally put many posts into this thread, and am finding myself going around in circles.

From now on, if I or someone else has already answered the question, or objection, I will be ignoring it. If you want to know where the answer is found, feel free to PM me, and I'll be happy to point you there.