lekh l'kha

I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread on things we all really, really need to understand. Everyone's contributions are welcome. So let me start with what I think is the very first thing we all really, really need to understand: It was OUR sins that cried out on that terrible day "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" and we are therefore all equally as guilty as those who were our mouthpiece. Lekh

I had a thought about this recently. A possible Biblical type of the apostasy: Esau knew what his birthright was - but he sold it for the here and now. By doing this he showed that he was more interested in the here and now than in God and eternity. When your brother comes back exhausted and hungry after being away for days on a hunting trip and asks you for a bowl of stew that he smelled coming out of your house, any good brother would give it to him gladly. What Jacob did was not very nice (to put it mildly) - but the whole thing showed that Jacob desperately wanted God as his inheritance, while Esau was more interested in wordly things. God could not have servants in His kingdom who were not 100% commited to God's cause, and so He allowed Jacob to steal his brother's birthright. I don't know if 2Thes.2 (the apostasy) belongs with Rev.13 "no-one being able to buy or sell" unless they receive the mark of the beast, but both passages belong at the very end of the age. There will be great delusion - 2Thes.2 tells us that. Speculatively (only speculating), the man of sin will offer something - prosperity and complete financial freedom perhaps - as long as you stop believing in Jesus as the One who is coming down from heaven on the clouds of heaven - and follow the man of sin instead. Imagine the whole world living in prosperity because they have received the mark of the beast and you being trodden underfoot by men because you can't buy or sell, and so are forced to become slaves to those who have received the mark, that they may at least feed you. That's all speculation - but I think Esau selling his brithright for the here and now is a Biblical type of the great apostasy.

That's very interesting. Thanks for those facts, shiloh357. The world doesn't recognize the hand of God in the establishment of modern Israel. Neither do many, many Christians. As a result, like the rest of humanity they cannot recognize the signs of the times. The church across the road from me is replacement theologist and tells (teaches) its members not to look for signs because "we don't know the day or the hour of His return". Of course, to them Israel is just an accident of modern history.

Fear thou not, O Jacob my servant, saith the LORD: for I am with thee; for I will make a full end of all the nations whither I have driven thee: but I will not make a full end of thee, but correct thee in measure; yet will I not leave thee wholly unpunished. (Jer 46:28) For, behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring again the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. (Joe 3:1-2) And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. (Zec 12:9) Yep, when God had made an end of using Babylon to punish Israel, He destroyed Babylon; and when He has made an end of using the nations to punish Israel, He will destroy the nations. You wanna be in the ark (in Christ) so you can be lifted out of the world when that day arrives.

Bible Study 101-A: The citations which you so blithely dismiss as being from the law of Moses were from the book of Hebrews and the book of Galatians, both in the New Testament...and you want to launch an ad hominum attack. Your polemic has no merit. Rufus, hang on. You're starting to make me laugh. I'll leave it here. Lekh Wise choice. Better to retreat than go down in ignominious defeat. The truth is you made me realize for the first time in my life what the Toronto blessing is all about. I could hardly type. So the seed of Abraham have been replaced by the seed of Abraham because the Mosaic Covenant God made with the seed of Abraham has been replaced by the New Covenant God made with the seed of Abraham, and the passages in Hebrews, Galatians etc which contrast the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant are not referring to the Mosaic Covenant. Made sense to me God bless brother - and thank you - you made my day! Proverbs 18:2; 20:3; 12:23. Pro. 18: 2 A fool has no delight in understanding, but only that his heart may lay itself bare. Pro. 20: 3 It is an honor for a man to cease from strife, but every fool exposes himself. Pro.12: 23 A wise man conceals knowledge, but the heart of fools cries out foolishness. Pro.25: 11 A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. Rufus, Play the ball and not the man. And God bless you - you made my day again

horizoneast, Play the ball and not the man. In the thread on "New Covenant" you stated in a post reply to me something to the effect that the land of Israel is not given eternally to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or that the Kingdom of Christ has nothing to do with the land of Israel. You've changed your tune slightly, I see? http://www.worthychristianforums.com/coven...39#entry1462139 post # 222 Quote: horizoneast ... If you are referring to God

lekh, I have to hand it to you. You are patient and caring, but you are beating your head against a couple of brick walls here. Some people are simply blinded by their doctrine and simply don't get what scripture plainly says. They twist it around, explain it away, say it doesn't mean what it says literally. They have multiple ways of attempting to make an end run around what scripture says or smear someone elses character instead of dealing with facts. You have to throw away, ignore or completely mis-interpet every book of prophecy to say that Israel is finished. You have to make words like 'everlasting,' 'eternal,' and 'irrevocable' mean something else. What they never get is that when they subscribe to their brand of doctrine, they make God a liar. As Desi Arnaz would say, when they stand before the Lord, they will have some "'splainin' to do. . ." It never makes sense to me though. These are folks who seem to believe in Jesus as much as I do and who seem to love Him, and yet they can't see. Not only do all the prophets say the same thing (except Jonah, Nahum and Obadiah, who prophesied to Gentiles about Gentiles only), but the apostles said the same thing (Acts 3: 17-25. for example). They also can't see all the Biblical types, such as the fact that Jesus is a Jew who is fully the antitype of Joseph, who yearned for his Israelite brethren who had rejected him and betrayed him even though he took a Gentile bride - and that he yearned for them in all those years of estrangement from them to such an extent, that when that day of reconciliation finally came, the whole house of Pharoah (a Biblical type of"the kings of the world") heard his loud sobs as he fell on their necks and embraced them, forgiving them. Then he went and lived with his Gentile bride and Israelite brethren in the idyllic land of goshen - a Bibical type of the millennium. With the exception of the parts of the Bible dealing specifically with salvation through Jesus, most of the Bible is a closed book to those who are blinded by this unbiblical conviction of theirs. It's really sad, and difficult to understand why. Lekh

this is a very interesting thread and I haven't been following it, but I've just read the first five pages. I don't know if anyone else has said this yet, but I think that (presuming) it were possible for someone to lose his salvation, then questions like this wouldn't bother the person whose lost his/her salvation. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ who lived a perfect, sinless life on our behalf and died once-for-all for our sins and rose from the dead, and is seated on God's throne, and is now our mediator and advocate. If salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ, then if someone can lose his salvation, losing his salvation must include simply not believing anymore, and these questions wouldn't worry such a person anymore. ** Added by edit *** I firmly believe that faith in Jesus Christ is God-given, and therefore for someone to lose his faith in Jesus, he must make a conscious choice to turn away from Him.

Whooa - that all depends on who it is whose taught us I've been told once if I don't like the teaching in the church I can always find another church - and I wasn't being arrogant, I just wanted to discuss what had been taught from the pulpit. I got outta that church

Maybe they are close minded and have not interpreted scripture correctly. Do you really think so? It's difficult for me to believe that most Christians who believe only on one part of the full counsel of God regarding the Messiah are consciously or deliberately closed-minded to the truth of the Biblical message - I think it has a lot to do with the theology passed onto them by their teachers, who in turn are taught it in their theological seminaries, Bible Colleges etc. The reason why I asked those questions was to hopefully get those who are locked in this mindset of "Old Testament/New Testament Israel" to think a little deeper about the implications of this teaching they have received and believed. But it seems to be to no avail. Others have tried, and not succeeded. Maybe most Christians just take it for granted that their teachers know better than they do "because they have the theological training", and so they don't search the scriptures enough to find out for themselves if everything they hear is true.

Bible Study 101-A: The citations which you so blithely dismiss as being from the law of Moses were from the book of Hebrews and the book of Galatians, both in the New Testament...and you want to launch an ad hominum attack. Your polemic has no merit. Rufus, hang on. You're starting to make me laugh. I'll leave it here. Lekh Wise choice. Better to retreat than go down in ignominious defeat. The truth is you made me realize for the first time in my life what the Toronto blessing is all about. I could hardly type. So the seed of Abraham have been replaced by the seed of Abraham because the Mosaic Covenant God made with the seed of Abraham has been replaced by the New Covenant God made with the seed of Abraham, and the passages in Hebrews, Galatians etc which contrast the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant are not referring to the Mosaic Covenant. Made sense to me God bless brother - and thank you - you made my day!

Bible Study 101-A: The citations which you so blithely dismiss as being from the law of Moses were from the book of Hebrews and the book of Galatians, both in the New Testament...and you want to launch an ad hominum attack. Your polemic has no merit. Rufus, hang on. You're starting to make me laugh. I'll leave it here. Lekh

Oh, Ok. So you're saying that each prophet and each apostle had his own program and his own message that had nothing to do with the messages of any of the others?

Even the Pope would be able to help you out here, Rufus. Aint no Christian theologian who doesn't understand that God's binding Himself by oath = God making a covenant. You hit the nail on the head - only God passed through the pieces when He made a covenant with Abraham to perform ALL that He had promised Abraham, and there was no obligation on Abraham to perform. In fact, Abraham did not even solicit God's calling or eternal election of his seed through Isaac, or the promise of the land of Canaan as the everlasting inheritance of His seed through Isaac. And what seed inherits those promises? "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal 3:16-18) What is Christ's inheritance in the earth, Rufus? God has told you what it is - but you've failed to comprehend it, because you say the Mosaic Covenant annulled His inheritance - even though Paul told you it did not: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8) "And Jehovah shall possess Judah, His portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, all flesh, before Jehovah; for He has risen out of His holy dwelling place." (Zec 2:12-13) "Yea, I have set My king on My holy hill, on Zion. I will declare the decree of Jehovah. He has said to Me, You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I shall give the nations for Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." (Psa 2:6-9) Are you telling God that Christ's inheritance is in heaven only?

A covenant is a legal contract spelling out the obligations of all the parties to that contract. God did not make a covenant with Abraham or David. However, He did make them promises which He kept. The same is true of Noah. There was no covenant, no mutual obligations, until after the exodus. You are twisting scripture to make it mean something God never intended. You're showing your ignorance. The covenant God made with Abraham is recorded in Genesis 15. And every theologian's commentary will tell you that the ancients understood that binding yourself by oath = making a covenant. God's oath to king David is referred to by God Himself in the Psalms and recorded in 2 Samuel, and God's covenant-oath with Abraham is referred to in the book of Hebrews. I'm not going to do you the favor of quoting the scriptures chapter and verse (even though I know them), since you obviously need to brush up on your Bible knowledge, and there aint no reason why I should do that for you.

The covenant was not contingent on both parties. That is why Abram slept while God walked between the sacrifice halves. The assertion that Abram and his decendents had to somehow "live up" to certain conditions for the covenant to be binding is false. The only condition of the Abraham covenant applies to Israel possessing the land. When they kept the covenant, they got to stay in the land. When they did not, they were removed. What it boils down to is there are a great many people and churches who do not want Israel to receive that which God has promised them. All this stems from the anti-semitic views of the early "churchs" such as the RCC. But it can't be supported scripturally. The Church does not replace Israel. And anyone who honestly believes that it does is in for a big surprise, and if I were them, I would start thinking of the excuse they are going to give Christ when they stand before Him for believing this replacement theology junk. Not that he is going to accept any excuse. The Mosaic Covenant was contingent upon both parties, Cobalt. But the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant are not contingent upon both parties - even though like the New Covenant, the promises can only be received through faith in the Word of God - and because father Abraham believed, all who are of the faith of Abraham are his seed. But the Mosaic Covenant cannot annul the Abrahamic Covenant or the Davidic Covenant or change their literal meaning any more than it can annul the New Covenant or change its literal meaning (Gal.3: 17). The Mosaic Covenant's deal was that IF the Israelites would obey the Law, THEN God would be their God and bless them, and they agreed, but failed to keep their part of the deal. It's this covenant therefore that the author of the letter to the Hebrews is referring to when he says, "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." (Heb 8:8-9) The New Covenant renders the Mosaic Covenant "old" - but not the Abrahamic Covenant or the davidic Covenant. That is what our replacement theology friends refuse to acknowldedge. And why, I don't know - because that's what the Bible says. Lekh

What you've overlooked is that I never said the Old Covenant is still in force. If you go and look at my post #11 HERE and read all of it you will see that I made it abundantly clear to Yod that the Old Covenant is not in force any longer - and why. What you also overlook is that the Old Covenant is the Mosaic Covenant of Law, and not the Abrahamic Covenant or the Davidic Covenant - the New Covenant states that God would make a new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" which would not be in accordance with the covenant He made with their fathers "in the day he took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt" (Jer.31: 32). What you overlook is the fact that there is a huge difference between the nature of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenant - and that the Old Covenant cannot annul the covenant which elected the seed of Abraham (Gal.3: 17). With the exception of the remnant (represented by Joshua and Caleb), an entire generation perished in the wilderness in unbelief. Only the next generation could enter their promised land under the leadership of Joshua - a typeo of Jesus. With the exception of the remnant that has always remained in each generation since Christ, all the generations of the physical seed have been perishing in a spiritual wilderness in unbelief. Only the final generation alive at the return of Christ will enter into the New Covenant and be given there promise inheritance - because as prophesied, they will repent of their unbelief when the nations gather against Israel and Jerusalem one final time. This is such a tragedy that the apostle Paul excalimed, "I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Rom 9:1-5) And if that was Paul's attitude toward his kinsmen, then that should be out attitude - since we are the seed of Abraham. If it is not our attitude to long for the prophesied day of the reconciliation of the physical descendants, then there is something very wrong. Lekh

Also tell me why you break sound hermeneutics rule #1 by isolating Rom.9: 8 and interpreting it in isolation of what else Paul said, and in isolation of what the rest of the Word of God teaches: "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 9:8)? I ask this because immediately before Paul said this, he said, "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called." (Rom 9:7); and soon afterward, he spoke of the remnant of the flesh-seed of Isaac and Jacob who are saved, saying again in Romans 11: "I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew..." (Rom 11:1-2). After mentioning the remnant again, Paul said that believing Gentiles are grafted in among the remnant - we are grafted into a nation called Israel among the meshikim. The very fact that Paul mentions the tribe of Benjamin, shows that by "His people", Paul is taling about those called "His people" throughout the Bible, in verses such as the one below: "And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." (Exo 5:1) So why do break rule #1 of sound hermeneutics to isolate verses of scripture such as Rom.9: 8 and interpret it in isolation from everything else Paul said and everything else that the Word of God teaches? Lekh

Or can someone who believes in this Dualistic "Kingdom of Christ" theology explain to me why your believe in it? Lekh

Please don't just glance over the verses below, just because you've read them before. Read them carefully, because something's changed (apparently): "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for a temporary covenant which will last only until the establishment of a new covenant which I will yet make with your seed after you, to be a God to you and to your seed after you... ... And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for a temporary possession, only until the establishment of the new covenant. And I will be their God." (Gen.17: 7-8). O.k - that's not what God said - but that's apparently what He meant, according to many Christians. In truth, what God actually said was: "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your seed after you. And I will give the land to you in which you are a stranger, and to your seed after you, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession. And I will be their God." (Gen 17:7-8). The Hebrew word for "everasting" in the above verses is "olam" and it's the same word used in the verses below: "Behold! I, even I, establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature that is with you, of the birds, of the cattle, and of every animal of the earth with you; from all that go out from the ark, to every animal of the earth. And I will establish My covenant with you. Neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood. Neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature with you, for everlasting generations: I set my rainbow in the cloud. And it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and the earth." (Gen 9:9-13). 1. This is the Noahic Covenant, and it shows that God makes covenants WITH FLESH. 2. It also shows that if God keeps His promises with the flesh-seed of His Covenants, this does not mean that the fulfillment of the promises is a carnal thing and produced by the flesh . 3. The fulfillment of the promise contained in the covenant is not based upon the faith of the beneficiaries of the promise, who are flesh - it is based ALONE upon the Word (promise) of God and His faithfulness to His Word. 4. An everlasting token was given by God as the sign both of the covenant and of the everlasting nature of the covenant. 5. The word "everlasting" in the Nohaic Covenant quoted above, is the same Hebrew word (olam) that is used in the next promise that God made with flesh - the seed of Abraham; and God sealed this promise by making an oath (covenant) with Abraham guaranteeing the fulfillment of the promise. This oath is written about in Gen.15: 5-21 and mentioned in Heb.6: 13-18. The promise was not solicited by Abraham or his physical descendants, and Paul tells us that the inheritance of this promise belongs ultimately to Christ, and that the Mosaic Covenant (which was ratified with blood and not sealed by God's oath) cannot annul the promise: "And to Abraham and to his Seed the promises were spoken. It does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, "And to your Seed," which is Christ. And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it. For if the inheritance is of Law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by way of promise." (Gal 3:16-18). So the promise belongs ultimately to Christ, and the prophet Zechariah and others tell us that He will take His inheritance: "And Jehovah shall possess Judah, His portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, all flesh, before Jehovah; for He has risen out of His holy dwelling place." (Zec 2:12-13). But again, that's not what God meant, according to many Christians. They claim that God actually meant a spiritual kingdom which has nothing to do with God's original promises to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets - and they say this not even realizing that this theological separation of the spiritual and the physical is derived from the Greek gnostic philosophy of Dualism, which maintains that the spiritual and the physical cannot be united, since (according to Dualism) the physical is corrupt and can never be sanctified. But can they give valid reasons for saying that God never meant what He said? Nope, they can't. They will quote verses like the following, ignoring the meaning of the Greek word "nun" (pronounced noon), which means "of present time" and has been translated into English as "now": "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now (Greek: nun, "of present time") My kingdom is not from here." (Joh 18:36). Forgetting that the Revelation says that at the sounding of the seventh trumpet "... the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.." (Rev.11: 15), they will go along with the Greek gnostic influence and maintain an everlasting Dualistic separation between the spiritual and the physical, and continue to claim that God never actually meant what He promised by oath to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets, and they will continue to ignore the fact that the same Greek word "nun" used in John 18: 36, is used in the following verse also: "For Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now (Greek: nun, "of present time") is, and is in slavery with her children." (Gal 4:25). And so they will deny that God actually meant the things He said through the prophets, such as: "And Jehovah shall possess Judah, His portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again. Be silent, all flesh, before Jehovah; for He has risen out of His holy dwelling place." (Zec 2:12-13). "I will declare the decree of Jehovah. He has said to Me, You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I shall give the nations for Your inheritance; and the uttermost parts of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." (Psa 2:7-9). The prophets prophesied of a Messiah who would: 1. Be the antitype of David who would save the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from their enemies ("the nations") by judging their enemies who would gather against Jerusalem in a day during which the Jews are being regathered to the land of their fathers (which God promised them would be their eternal inheritance). 2. Be the antitype of Joseph who would be betrayed by his brothers, and suffer and die for his people. The Jews who refuse to believe in this Messiah have been blinded to the second part of the full counsel of God regarding Him, because they do not want such a Messiah. Yet there are many Gentiles who believe in the second part of the full counsel of God regarding the Messiah, yet they remain blinded to the first part, because they do not want such a Messiah - they do not want a Messiah who will take possession of Judah as His inheritance and will choose Jerusalem again, ruling all the world from His throne in Jerusalem, just as God promised. These Gentiles will ignore the fact that just as God's promise to Abraham was sealed by oath, so God's promise to king David was likewise sealed by oath: "My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me." (Psa 89:34-36, see also 2Samuel 7: 16). These oaths (covenants) of God are unlike the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, in that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant were ratified by blood (not sealed by an oath), and have to do with obedience to Law and obedience to God, and salvation from the consequences of transgression/disobedience. And yet Stephen said to the Jews who would not believe in the second part of the full counsel of God regarding the Messiah and His Kingdom: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." (Acts 7:51). So the question is: Why is that so many Gentiles will only believe in a gnostic-inspired theology of "the kingdom of Christ", and do not want a Messiah who will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy land, and choose Jerusalem again, reigning the whole world from His throne in Jerusalem? Why is it that so many Gentiles choose a theology which teaches that God did not actually mean what He promised in His oaths to Abraham and king David, and in His promises to the prophets and to the Jews through the prophets? Why is it that so many Gentiles, like all unbelieving Jews, refuse to believe the full counsel of God regarding the Messiah and His Kingdom? Can anyobody explain this to me? Lekh