Israel (Jews) and Our Views

[Salty]

 

Romans 11:28 (NASB95)

28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;

 

Romans 11:28 (KJV)

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

 

This is what I keep trying to tell the naysayers who refuse to believe the Bible teaches a physical Israel and a Spirit Israel. Physical Israel are the chosen / elect people of this life; this world. Spirit Israel (the Church, that is: the assembly, the great assembly {going back at least as far as Exodus 12}, or the cloud of witnesses {going back as far as according to Abel Hebrews 11}  are the chosen / elect people of the after life; the heaven-earth to come. 

 

A distinction drawn as  far back as:

 

 

Genesis 17:11 (KJV)

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

 

Deuteronomy 10:16 (KJV)

16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

 

Jeremiah 4:4 (KJV)

4 Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings.

 

Romans 2:28-29 (KJV)

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

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

 

Galatians 6:13-16 (KJV)

13 For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.

14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

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

16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God

 

Jeremiah 9:25-26 (KJV)

25 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised;

26 Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.

 

Romans 9:6 (KJV)

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

 

Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all (spirit) Israel, which are of (physical) Israel:

 

 

Not bad. Glad to see I'm not alone with heeding God's Holy Writ on this matter.

 

That idea of circumcision as a 'token' of God's Promise by Faith to Abraham, which was 430 years before the law, certainly is a twister for many. Yet there it is in Genesis to Abraham in association with that Promise by Faith, and not the law.

 

So when unbelieving Jews circumcise their children today, they are thinking 'law' aren't they, and not God's Promise by Faith first given through Abraham? Apostle Paul said we no longer have need of flesh circumcision, but the circumcision of our hearts to Christ Jesus, so that's spiritual too isn't it?

[OakWood]

 

 

I believe God's word and Israel is defined as the seed of Jacob and the nation of those people. That's God word. So i suggest that you take your own advice and stop thinking otherwise than God's word. You accuse others of which you do yourself. You're teaching false things. Your views are no different to those who believe in replacement theology, and look at what that caused.

 

 

Then is the seed of Israel excluded... from God's Salvation Promise by Faith first given to Abraham? You don't see how you contradict yourself and God's Word.

 

Even the seed of Israel MUST believe that Promise by Faith which is The Gospel of Jesus Christ, in order to be saved. Now if you want to go against Apostle Paul on that per Romans 11 and Galatians, then you go directly against the foundational NT Books of Christian Doctrine.

 

 

I'm not contradicting God's word you are. Don't patronise me. I understand scripture better than you do. You obviously haven't read Romans 11 but you have such a sense of superiority that you think that you're the only person who can interpret it. Such pride, eh? Yet you have interpreted it wrong. For the last time Israel refers to Jacob's seed. and NOT to Gentiles. To say otherwise is to contradict scripture which you seem to do quite a lot. But you accuse others of doing so.

[Guest shiloh357]

..

[Salty]

This is for believers on Christ Jesus, whether flesh born Israelites or Gentiles. It is not for Orthodox unbelieving Jews, because the veil over their eyes for rejecting Jesus of Nazareth as The Christ-Messiah will not allow them to understand it at this time. But I can guarantee, they will understand it when Jesus returns.

 

One of the matters with the idea of God's Promises is His 'Birthright'. These are about God's Blessings which it would seem most of the seed of Israel think can only ever apply to them. But that is not true Biblically, as Apostle Paul showed with Gentiles in Ephesians 2 who have believed on Jesus Christ and therefore have come "nigh" (near, or into) those Promises first given to Abraham and his seed that Christ would be born through.

 

1 Chron.5

1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

² For Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph's:)

 

 

This "birthright" is the same one that Jacob coerced Esau (firstborn) into selling to him, Esau having profaned it, treating it like wares to be traded or sold. In reality God had already revealed before Jacob and Esau were born that the younger Jacob would rule over his elder brother Esau. 

 

Per that 1 Chron.5 Scripture we see that birthright then went to Joseph, and then Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh.

 

This is the same Birthright from God which He first gave to Abraham linked with His Salvation Promise by FAITH. (Both Esau and Ishmael are still angry over that 'birthright', because Ishmael sees himself as the firstborn of Abraham. But it was reserved by God to the children of the Promise, like Apostle Paul even said in Romans 9).

 

So even our brother Apostle Paul covered this matter of God's Birthright in his NT Epistles, scanning over it quickly though, and only those who have done their OT Bible study will even know this is what Paul was talking about there in Rom.9 concerning Isaac, Jacob, and Esau.

 

Even with God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (but then withdrew the command), that was to represent the Promise by Faith which He had given to Abraham. God had already told Abraham about his seed after him, so he had have trusted God that He would accomplish what He said. And note that the new name 'Israel' had not yet been given with Isaac, for Jacob was not even born at that time. Yet God also used Isaac in a representation of The Gospel Promise by Faith also.

 

In Gen.26 God gave the same Blessing He gave to Abraham, then to Isaac. If one continues God then gives the same Blessing to Jacob, transferring it again, along with His Birthright blessing. Isaac did the same thing for Jacob.

 

Thus God is called The God of Abraham, The God of Isaac, and The God of Jacob, for that reason, because God's Promise by Faith was transferred down the line through them. But recall 1 Chron.5 that shows the birthright kept going, even down to Joseph, and then to Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh where it stopped.

 

Of course most Jews don't like this 'birthright' matter to be revealed like I'm doing here. But really the Bible student must do their own homework on this to really understand why I say that. It's because not only are the unbelieving Jews jealous of this matter, but so is Esau, and Ishmael. And thus one of the reasons for their warring against us Christians, like Paul said about unbelieving Jews, they are enemies for The Gospel sake going to the Gentiles, but beloved still by The Father, for His gifts are without repentance (meaning He won't take them back).

 

Per Genesis 49:10, Judah was to retain the portion of God's Promise involving the royal sceptre rule, and care of His law, all the way up to Christ's ("Shiloh") return. But like 1 Chron.5 states, the birthright went to Joseph's two sons.

 

The only matter I leave out on this 'birthright' connection with God's Promise by Faith first to Abraham, is just what all His Birthright blessing contains. I leave that for the disciplined Bible student to find out. But learn it, and you will have more foresight today of what past history between Christians, Esau, Ishmael, and unbelieving Jews, has been about, and how it will continue up to Christ's return when He will settle this matter once and for all for His Church.

[Openly Curious]

HI Mac,

 

There is an important rule of hermeneutics that says that a passage of Scripture cannot mean today what it didn't mean when it was originally penned.  The Church is not an OT concept. 

 

The Church did not start with Abraham, or Israel or anyone or any entity in the OT.  The Church began on the day of Pentecost.   There is no continuation of the Church from the OT. 

 

I draw a necessary distinction between the OT uses of Ekklessia and how it is used in the NT with reference to the Church.  Since "Church" is not a translation of Ekkessia it cannot be stated that the uses of Ekkessia in the OT are references to an OT manifestation of the Church.

Hi Shiloh,

I think what you did not say in your response to me says much more about your Christian position than what you do say.

In Christ, Pat

What it says is that I believe the Bible.  I don't have time to study out every instance of Ekklesia in the OT.   I have a lot of other, more important things to do.   But I know what the Bible says and I know how to exegete Scripture and the fact remains that there is no Church in the OT.  If you say otherwise, you are simply wrong.

Hi Shiloh, I am just curious reading through the thread and have a few thoughts maybe you could clarify for me in your views here. If I am correct you have been making the point that the church is not an OT doctrine. The term "Church" or body of Christ doesn't appear in the OT and that is true. But certainly the family of God being the children of Israel or people of God did exist in the OT. Not only did they exist in the OT but were known as the "BELOVED". I know that the nation of Israel started out and came into being through the twelve sons that were born to him from his two wives Rachel and Leah. Each of Jacob's twelve sons was the head or partriach of the twelve tribes of Israel who are Jews by birth and heirs according to the promise given to Abraham. But even in the OT Gentiles who were not Jews by birth. Could seperate themselves unto God and keep and practice the law of Moses and be obeidient to God and to his ways and they were accepted into the Beloved or Jewish family of believers and they even being Gentiles in the flesh and not Jews by birth they still inherited the blessing of obedience that was in the OT covenant. Now I know in the NT all Gentiles (all people on earth other than those of Jewish decent)do not become a Jew or decendant of Israel outwardly in the flesh because they are born again. That stands to reason but thought it should be clarified on my part.

But if a person who is not of Jewish decent accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior scriptures states they become a Jew inwardly being transformed or changed by the power and grace of God and it is the work of God and not of the works of the law. As God had said he would take away the heart of stone and give a heart of flesh with his laws written on the tablets of our hearts. Now as I said I know that all Gentiles being changed by the power of God and translated into the kingdom of light still outwardly in the flesh remain was nationality they were born into by birth. But inwardly they become part of the people of God, they are the Beloved of God. They are a peculiar people kings and priest of God and heirs with Christ. They are adopted into the family of God or people of God just as it was in the OT. Of course dispensation comes into play as we are in the dispensation of grace and not law.

So my questions are do you not see the "Church" in the NT as having been given the same titles as the OT saints? Do you view Gentiles believers as "HEIRS" to the blessings of God and fellow citizens with the saints even though their nationality is not outwardly a Jew by birth? Do you view all believing Gentiles as not being a peculiar people, a holy priesthood, kings and priest of God? How do you view Christ in light of Jesus being our elder brother? Let me stop myself here but if you could claify this for me it would help me personally understand you more in depth. Thank you in advance.

[Guest shiloh357]

Hi Shiloh, I am just curious reading through the thread and have a few thoughts maybe you could clarify for me in your views here. If I am correct you have been making the point that the church is not an OT doctrine. The term "Church" or body of Christ doesn't appear in the OT and that is true. But certainly the family of God being the children of Israel or people of God did exist in the OT

 

Yes, but the Bible's description of Israel and it's description of the Church are different.  God did have a people in the earth, but it is not the same people as the Church.   If the Church was a continuation of Israel, then Jesus would not have spoken of the Church in futuristic sense Matt. 16.   He said, upon this rock "I WILL build my Church, that is something in the future to the time that spoke those words.  He didn't say, "upon this rock I am building, or have built, my church."

[Openly Curious]

Hi Shiloh, I am just curious reading through the thread and have a few thoughts maybe you could clarify for me in your views here. If I am correct you have been making the point that the church is not an OT doctrine. The term "Church" or body of Christ doesn't appear in the OT and that is true. But certainly the family of God being the children of Israel or people of God did exist in the OT

Yes, but the Bible's description of Israel and it's description of the Church are different.  God did have a people in the earth, but it is not the same people as the Church.   If the Church was a continuation of Israel, then Jesus would not have spoken of the Church in futuristic sense Matt. 16.   He said, upon this rock "I WILL build my Church, that is something in the future to the time that spoke those words.  He didn't say, "upon this rock I am building, or have built, my church."

This leads me to ask, Are you actually saying that their are now in the NT Church Age or dispensation "two" holy nations, "two" peculiar peoples "two" royal priesthoods, "two" families of God the Beloved in existence. One being the nation of Israel(Jews) and the other nation being the Church (Jews & Gentile believers in Christ). Or do you view the Church only being the believing Gentiles.

God did have a "people" in the earth and he "still has" a people in the earth regardless of their race or nationality. But you don't view them as just one people but two people in the earth or at least that is my understanding. You don't view the Jews and Gentiles as being fellowheirs in the promises of God by faith as the faith of Abraham who believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

Jesus was speaking in a futuristic sense only because he at that point when speaking to Peter had not suffered the cross but that time was near. Jesus was speaking of "himself" as he is and has been the Rock of all Ages past and present as well as future. Jesus is the chief cornerstone which some stumbled over as they don't believe he is Messiah. People no matter their race or nationality are still stumbling over the stone the builders rejected. Jesus told Peter upon this Rock I will build my Church and it was upon Peter's confession of faith that the Heavenly Father revealed to him that Jesus was the Son of God in which he would build his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

I wished you would have eloborated a little further but be that as it may. I'm only trying to understand your views which are still confusing. thanks

[Guest shiloh357]

This leads me to ask, Are you actually saying that their are now in the NT Church Age or dispensation "two" holy nations, "two" peculiar peoples "two" royal priesthoods, "two" families of God the Beloved in existence. One being the nation of Israel(Jews) and the other nation being the Church (Jews & Gentile believers in Christ). Or do you view the Church only being the believing Gentiles.

 

The nation of Israel is still God's chosen nation.   If God rescinded biblical Israel's status as His chosen people and transferred their blessings to the Church, then God is not faithful.   God has promises He made to biblical Israel that have not come to pass.  If God is faithful to keep those promises, then God is not faithful and we have reason to question His integrity.

 

God did have a "people" in the earth and he "still has" a people in the earth regardless of their race or nationality. But you don't view them as just one people but two people in the earth or at least that is my understanding. You don't view the Jews and Gentiles as being fellowheirs in the promises of God by faith as the faith of Abraham who believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

 

The nation of Israel has a purpose that God destined them more that they have not fulfilled at this point and will not until the end times.

 

Jesus was speaking in a futuristic sense only because he at that point when speaking to Peter had not suffered the cross but that time was near.

 

No, that is not true and there is no way you can get that from what He said.  Jesus said that He will (in the future) build His Church. It could not be plainer and there is no reason to muddy the waters.  The Church, according to Paul was a mystery hidden in God and was not revealed until it was revealed through the apostles.

 

 

Jesus was speaking of "himself" as he is and has been the Rock of all Ages past and present as well as future. Jesus is the chief cornerstone which some stumbled over as they don't believe he is Messiah.

 

No, the "rock" he was referring to was Peter's confession of Him as Messiah and the Son of God.

 

I wished you would have eloborated a little further but be that as it may. I'm only trying to understand your views which are still confusing. thanks

 

I don't see what is so confusing.  Israel is Israel; the Church is the Church.  it really is that simple and that's what the Bible teaches.

[alphaparticle]

A friend we'll call Adam wrote the following to me...

 

God's chosen people has always been the Church, though primarily composed of the geo-political body of Israel for a time, but now expanded to include the elect from all tribes and tongues. The current day nation of Israel is no more God's chosen people than America or any other nation is. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem, as well, and for the repentance of the nation of Israel, who as a whole rejects the Messiah and has been cut off, and who are idolaters and cannot rightly be considered God's people in any sense.

The promises were made to the true seed of Abraham, Christ and those who are in Him. Please read Galatians 3.

 

 

First, how do you view Israel (Jews)?

Second, how would you respond to this friend?

God bless,

GE

Israel =/= Jews, insofar as there is a modern nation state called Israel nowadays, and there are Jews all over.

 

Second, I agree with the friend insofar as I think the main thing is Christ isn't it? What good does it for a random Jew (and I say this as a Jew, with many people I love as Jews!) if he rejects Christ yet is a Jew? You can say, God still promises the land, and descendents. All fine and good, but what is this compared to eternal life? So while I disagree with your friend that all of God's promises to the Jews has been completely fulfilled and therefore void, say, with the land, I do agree with the general notion that the point is supposed to be salvation through Christ. My concern is with all the focus at times with praying for Israel and Jews as God's chosen people and all this that the central point of eternal life through Jesus only is lost.

[Openly Curious]

 shiloh357, on 05 Aug 2014 - 7:49 PM, said:

The nation of Israel is still God's chosen nation.   If God rescinded biblical Israel's status as His chosen people and transferred their blessings to the Church, then God is not faithful.   God has promises He made to biblical Israel that have not come to pass.  If God is faithful to keep those promises, then God is not faithful and we have reason to question His integrity.

I do not think God rescinded anything or "transferred" as you say their blessings to the church. But I do think all believers in the New Covenant in Christ whether they be believing Jews or Gentiles by birth have "Entered Into" (my term) the blessings of Israel. The blessing isn't transferred to the Church but the church now shares in the blessings which is much much different. To say the blessings promised to Israel by oath to Abraham before the law was given was transferred to the Church. Is like saying he has abandoned his chosen people and disannulled his promises by oath to Abraham and I do not believe that God has abandoned Israel concerning the promised seed. God is not through with Israel as a nation though they have been blinded in part at present time having rejected Christ as Messiah the Saviour of the world. God still has a remnant in Israel that will see in the end time events that Jesus was and is the Messiah and will turn to him purifying themselves 144,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel to be exact. I know God is faithful to his promises and he is not slack as some men count slackness concerning their promises.

When a person comes to Christ the veil is lifted regardless of nationality. Which is simply having the God of Israel as their God and Father having been adopted through Christ and given access to the Father whereby we cry Abba Father as his love is shed abroad in our hearts and our sins forgiven. The God of Israel is MY GOD and Father through Christ and I am his child regardless of my nationality and all his promises are yes and amen. Saying that doesn't disannul or take away any promises from the nation of Israel thus tranferring them to the church.

God did have a "people" in the earth and he "still has" a people in the earth regardless of their race or nationality. But you don't view them as just one people but two people in the earth or at least that is my understanding. You don't view the Jews and Gentiles as being fellowheirs in the promises of God by faith as the faith of Abraham who believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness.

 

The nation of Israel has a purpose that God destined them more that they have not fulfilled at this point and will not until the end times.

I agree 100% on God having a purpose and destiny still to come to pass. But you really didn't address my question concerning being two bodies or people of God in the earth instead of only one Body, one Lord, one Faith etc., Are believing Gentiles and believing Jews sons of God and heirs of Christ as He is Lord and King. Seeing Christ ever liveth and sits on the throne of David forever having conquered death. No more kings will inherit the throne of David as Jesus will never die he holds the throne forever. Are the Jews only the sons of God. Are believing Gentiles sons of God or both Jews and Gentiles sons of God and heirs of the promise.

Jesus was speaking in a futuristic sense only because he at that point when speaking to Peter had not suffered the cross but that time was near.
 

No, that is not true and there is no way you can get that from what He said.  Jesus said that He will (in the future) build His Church. It could not be plainer and there is no reason to muddy the waters.  The Church, according to Paul was a mystery hidden in God and was not revealed until it was revealed through the apostles.

Well whether you think I can or can't get that from scripture I do just the same. I'm actually surprised here with your view that the Church doesn't exist right now on earth but will exist in the future still to come. Sometimes the waters need to be skimmed from the top before we drink. The mystery in which Paul speaks about is revealed to his saints regardless of nationality and that is "Christ in us the hope of glory". This is the first time I have ever heard this train of thought on the Church coming into existance during the end times dealing with Israel the nation. Interesting.

Jesus was speaking of "himself" as he is and has been the Rock of all Ages past and present as well as future. Jesus is the chief cornerstone which some stumbled over as they don't believe he is Messiah.
 

No, the "rock" he was referring to was Peter's confession of Him as Messiah and the Son of God.

Yes that's exactly what I said "confession on HIM". On Christ the solid rock I stand all else is sinking sand.

I wished you would have eloborated a little further but be that as it may. I'm only trying to understand your views which are still confusing. thanks
 

I don't see what is so confusing.  Israel is Israel; the Church is the Church.  it really is that simple and that's what the Bible teaches.

The confusion I have is that you seem to think there are two peoples of God in the earth or at least it sounds like it to me I'm not clear on it.
Also it seems as you think the Jews or the nation of Israel are the only children of God in the earth right now. Because the church want exist until the end times. Yes I'm not clear on your views thus yet but I'm trying bear with me.