the bride of Christ

[saved34]

Saved,

 

there is nothing wrong with a Gentile believer acknowledging Jesus the Messiah.   But, He is not the Gentile's Messiah.  "Messiah" is a word that applies to Jesus' relationship to Israel, not to Gentile believers.   

 

I understand where you are going with what you are saying, but our being joint heirs with Christ, and his body, it is nearly impossible for us to distinguish the Messiah-ship of our Lord. As Messiah he died for our sins. He is the Messiah whether the Jews accepted him at his first advent or not. That's like saying we gentiles can't accept him in his title as God with us, or The Lamb of God. We have Jesus Christ in his totality. 

 

Luk 24:26  Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 

 

 

Dan 9:26  "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 

 

He was cut off for the sins of the world and scripture called him, Messiah. 

[saved34]

Ok, this is my last post in this thread for the night. Marilyn, why are you comparing a covenant between David and Jonathan, with the New Covenant which is dedicated in Christ's own blood. Why not contrast it with the Old Covenant? If you read Hebrews you get the wonderful picture of how this covenant or Testament(Because they are clearly one and the same), is much better and built upon better promises. A better high priest, better sacrifices(Christ own body and blood), real substance instead of things patterned after heavenly things. A real release from guilt before God. The New Testament is the revealing of God's redemptive plan for man. It's very simple and not at all necessary to jump through so many different hoops. 

[Marilyn C]

Ok, this is my last post in this thread for the night. Marilyn, why are you comparing a covenant between David and Jonathan, with the New Covenant which is dedicated in Christ's own blood. Why not contrast it with the Old Covenant? If you read Hebrews you get the wonderful picture of how this covenant or Testament(Because they are clearly one and the same), is much better and built upon better promises. A better high priest, better sacrifices(Christ own body and blood), real substance instead of things patterned after heavenly things. A real release from guilt before God. The New Testament is the revealing of God's redemptive plan for man. It's very simple and not at all necessary to jump through so many different hoops.

Hi Saved34,

You have asked a fair question for which I am glad as now I can talk to you concerning my last point. The discussion was concerning `covenant & testament,` & are they the same or different. I pointed out that David & Jonathan had a covenant but no bequest, testament, inheritance, as no one was to die. Then I went on to show how God the Father made a covenant with God the Son & how that included a will, a testament, an inheritance, as Christ died & passed it on.

Now to my point. Many people focus on what they call the Abrahamic covenant & think, well that is for Israel, or that is for Israel & the Body of Christ or that is just for the Body of Christ. So we have a jumble of thoughts. Now when we realize that the everlasting covenant was made by God the Father with God the Son in eternity, & that He has promises for three groups of people, then the scriptures become clearer.

Hope that is clearer also. Marilyn.

 

[Marilyn C]

Hi Openly Curious,

I thought these questions from you, still needed answering, so here are my replies.
 

Where in the scriptures Marilyn do you find where God the Father made a "covenant" with his Son Jesus Christ. You said a lot of things but failed to give the scriptural references that these claims were based upon.

You must have missed the first two scriptures that I posted, OC.

`Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.` (Heb. 13: 20)

`Thus says the Lord: “In an acceptable time I have heard you, & in the day of salvation I have helped you; I will preserve you & give you as a covenant to the people, to restore the earth, to cause them to inherit the desolate heritages;….` (Isa. 49: 8)

` God…..having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven & which are on earth – in Him, in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.` (Eph. 1: 9 – 11)

` The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations.` (Ps. 33: 11)

Counsel – deliberation, consultation.

God the Father & God the Son with God the Holy Spirit counseled together in eternity to undergird what they would create. That is, that if (potential) / when (God all knowing) man would sin then they (the Godhead) would provide the means necessary for the restoration of all. And that `means` is, as we know, through Christ –

`the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.` (Rev. 13: 8)



 

Why would God even need to make a covenant with Himself? If one party can break a covenant as you've stated what is to prevent the Father or the Son from breaking the covenant? You give an opinion that God couldn't break a covenant because He is God but you gave "no" scripture to back that claim up either.

`For men indeed swear by the greater & an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation,…` (Heb. 6: 16 – 18)

`Now see that I, even I, am He, & there is no God beside Me; I kill & make alive……I lift My hand to heaven, & say, “As I live forever….` (Deut. 32: 39 & 40) (God swears / oath by Himself.)

`…from the Father of lights, with who there is no variation or shadow of turning.` (James 1: 17)

Immutable – unchangeable, invariable.

 

You said you went back and looked into this more deeply which I took to mean you went back and sought answer from the bible so it would seem like you would have plenty of scripture to back up what you have said. All you have done thus far is give opinions not sound doctrine.

Just so you don`t just think this is my opinion I`ll include what some recognized scholars say.

`Covenant – Heb. berith is applied to various transactions between God & man. Divines ….between the Father & the Son, for the redemption of as many out of the fallen race as should attain life eternal.` (from Fairbairn`s Bible Encyclopedia)

`A covenant existed between God the Father & His beloved Son from everlasting, which can never break down because of either one failing to fulfill the agreement.`

From `His Glorious Name` by Charles J. Rolls: renowned on several continents for His encyclopedic knowledge of Scripture & his radiant devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a missionary in India, a home director for the Sudan Interior Mission, founder & dean of Bible schools in New Zealand, Australia & the United States.

Marilyn.

[Guest Butero]

 

Butero, saying we gentiles become Jews is foreign to the word of God. Like Shiloh said, in Christ the Church becomes one new man, where Jew and Gentile distinction is no longer recognized. Even though we Gentiles were strangers and alienated from the covenants and promises of God, he always planned our salvation as it was prophesied in the Old Testament, and God made sure he gave his promises long before he gave Moses his Law, and before he even gave the Jewish sign of circumcision to Abraham. Paul even told Peter and the other Jewish believers they were wrong to try and compel gentiles to live as Jews.

 

Col 3:10  and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 

Col 3:11  Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. 

 

You are seriously misinterpreting the scriptures in Romans and not understanding the difference between a natural Jew and a believing Jew, the remnant of Jews that God allowed to believe on Jesus. Paul considered himself one, the 12 were also apart of that remnant. The rest are blinded by God himself.

 

Rom 11:4  And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 

Rom 11:5  So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 

Rom 11:6  And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. 

Rom 11:7  What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, 

Rom 11:8  as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day." 

 

 

Let's examine the passages you gave me to make your point.  Colossians 3:10,11

 

10  And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him.

11  Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free:  but Christ is in all, and in all.

 

I find it interesting you would use this to show gentiles don't become Jews.  While it does show that there is no distinction in the way God views one member of his church from another, it does nothing to back up your position that gentiles don't become adopted Jews.  This very passage can be used to create a doctrine that there are no Jews anymore, and that they have been replaced by the church.  You can claim there are no Greeks either.  There are no Barbarians, Scythians, people in bonds or free.  I can create all kinds of strange doctrines with these two verses, but in reality, all it is really saying is that in the church, God sees us all the same.  We are all equally saved.  That is all it means, and anything else is just a stretch. 

 

Romans 11:4-8

 

4  But what saith the answer of God unto him?  I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.

5  Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6  And if by grace, then is it no more of works:  otherwise grace is no more grace.  But if it be of works, then is it no more grace:  otherwise work is no more work.

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

8  (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day. 

 

This passage is only stating that there are some of the natural branches that believe in Jesus.  God revealed the truth of Jesus to those people, while the spiritual blindness came upon the majority of the Jews.  None of this proves or disproves your position. 

[WilliamL]

... I didn't say there was no description.  There is.   It is described as a physical city walls and dimensions.   It is not a person or a people, though.    ...

Is "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:23), "the Jerusalem above" (Gal. 4:26) a physical city? Does it not have dimensions? Does it become physical when it "com[es] down out of heaven" (Rev. 21:2)?

 

Could any physical city 12,000 furlongs = 1500 miles high (Rev. 21:16) -- talk about a skyscraper -- survive the weight of gravity? (Let alone the lack of any atmosphere/air in its upper level? Hmmm, I guess that means it's really an above-the-skyscraper?)

Not to mention that the vast difference in angular velocity of its summit from its base would tear it to pieces. Or maybe the new earth won't rotate?

 

Or, are the "new heaven and new earth" (Rev. 21:1) physical at all?

 

Elohim's Creation is made up of Life/Chayyim, Breath/Neshamah, Spirit/Ruach, Soul/Nephesh, and Dust (from which comes Flesh/Basar).

 

"...when I laid the foundations of the earth...all the sons of Elohim shouted for joy." Job 38:4, 6

 

This tells us that the spiritual realm came before the physical one; which means the physical came forth out of the 'spiritual' (not just Ruach, but also Chayyim, Neshamah, and Nephesh). That is, the physical is ultimately made of of the non-physical, as even any physicist unbeliever can tell you.

 

So who can claim to know that this city New Jerusalem of the 8th Millennium is physical? Because, if it is in fact made up solely of higher-level stuff -- just as Elohim's original Creation was -- then it can only be described in metaphors of earthly things. And when you read Rev. 21-22 in this light...

[Guest Butero]

Butero,

 

The Acts 15 Council absolutely decided with the help of the Holy Spirit that Gentiles did not need to be considered Jews and they gave Gentiles four basic rules that formed the bear essentials for Gentiles to enjoy table fellowship with Jews.   They didn't tell them they were now Jews.

 

I don't have to come up with a verse to refute a concept that isn't in the Bible in the first place.  The Bible doesn't ever spiritualize the word "Jew" to refer to Gentiles, and defy you to show where it does. 

 

I  didn't say the Bible says that the beauty of the Gospel is that Gentiles remain Gentiles.    But Eph. 2 does support the fact that Gentiles and Jews are one new man.   The Gentiles are not Jews, but they are one in Christ with the Jews.  That fact alone refutes this notion that Gentiles become Jews when they saved.   

 

Your passage in Romans doesn't support your position at all because  Romans 11 isn't trying to define who is or isnt' Jewish and again,   Paul doesn't ever refer to the wild olive branches as anything BUT wild olive branches.

 

That's where your argument breaks down.   If Paul suddenly started referring to wild olive branches as natural branches, your argument would hold up.  But Paul always refers to the wild olive branches as wild even though they are grafted in.  

 

So Paul is not claiming that Gentile believers are Jews, no matter how many times you want to misinterpret the olive tree metaphor, it says what it says, and it doesn't say what you say.

Lets examine what was taking place in Acts 15.  There was a certain man that came and told converts from the gentile nations that in order to be saved, they had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses.  This led to a meeting to discuss the matter.  Here is what they discussed from Acts 15:7-11

 

7  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10  Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

11  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 

 

In verse 11, Peter is making no distinction between Jew and gentile convert as he said, "through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."  Just as the scriptures Saved34 posted did, your scriptures just re-affirm that God sees all Christians the same.  But now, we come to an even more interesting and controversial passage.  Beginning at verse 19 and continuing through verse 21, it says the following:

 

19  Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21  For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

 

Verse 19 doesn't actually say that Gentiles do or do not become adopted Jews.  It mentions  that they should trouble not them "which from among the Gentiles are turned to God."  Then it mentions their decision that they should teach that those Gentile converts should abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornication, from things strangled and from blood.  Some people misuse this scripture to make the claim that these are the only things Gentile converts need be concerned with, but that is not what it means.  If you notice in verse 21, it says that it isn't necessary to go in depth into additional things, because they are discussed in the synagogues every Sabbath day.  The point here isn't to say this is an all inclusive list of laws for Gentiles, but to say that it is not necessary for them to be circumcised and keep the entirety of the law to be saved.  Once again, we see another passage easily perverted by taking it out of context, and just how easy it is to twist scripture if someone desires to do that.  None of this proves your case.  Now, the question is, have I the ability to prove my case?  I admit that it is not possible to prove my position beyond a doubt.  I am saying that the passage in Romans teaches that the gentiles become adopted Jews.  Lets go back to Romans 11:16-24

 

16  For if he firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy, and if the root be holy, so are the branches.

17  And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakes of the root and the fatness of the olive tree.

18  Boast not against the branches.  But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.

19  Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.

20  Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.  Be not highminded, but fear:

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

22  Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God:  on them which fell, severity;  but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness:  otherwise thou also shall be cut off.

23  And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in:  for God is able to graff them in again.

24  For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree:  how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

 

You claim that the branches were wild olive branches, and remain wild olive branches.  Notice what it actually says in verse 17.

 

And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakes of the root and fatness of the olive tree. 

 

It actually calls them "a wild olive tree," not just a wild olive branch.  So long as the branches are attached to the wild olive tree, the branches are wild, but they are cut out of that tree.  It says in verse 24.

 

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary into a good olive tree:  how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? 

 

Again, while they were part of the wild olive tree, they were called wild branches.  They were even referred to as a wild tree.  It makes no logical sense to believe they could be a wild tree and a good tree at the same time.  Now, we could debate what the good tree is as opposed to the wild tree that the branches were part of?  My contention is that the wild tree represents the gentiles who are unbelievers, and the good tree the believing Jews, but if you want to say that is not the case, and wish to discuss other possibilities, I am open to such a discussion. 

[Guest Butero]

 

... I didn't say there was no description.  There is.   It is described as a physical city walls and dimensions.   It is not a person or a people, though.    ...

Is "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:23), "the Jerusalem above" (Gal. 4:26) a physical city? Does it not have dimensions? Does it become physical when it "com[es] down out of heaven" (Rev. 21:2)?

 

Could any physical city 12,000 furlongs = 1500 miles high (Rev. 21:16) -- talk about a skyscraper -- survive the weight of gravity? (Let alone the lack of any atmosphere/air in its upper level? Hmmm, I guess that means it's really an above-the-skyscraper?)

Not to mention that the vast difference in angular velocity of its summit from its base would tear it to pieces. Or maybe the new earth won't rotate?

 

Or, are the "new heaven and new earth" (Rev. 21:1) physical at all?

 

Elohim's Creation is made up of Life/Chayyim, Breath/Neshamah, Spirit/Ruach, Soul/Nephesh, and Dust (from which comes Flesh/Basar).

 

"...when I laid the foundations of the earth...all the sons of Elohim shouted for joy." Job 38:4, 6

 

This tells us that the spiritual realm came before the physical one; which means the physical came forth out of the 'spiritual' (not just Ruach, but also Chayyim, Neshamah, and Nephesh). That is, the physical is ultimately made of of the non-physical, as even any physicist unbeliever can tell you.

 

So who can claim to know that this city New Jerusalem of the 8th Millennium is physical? Because, if it is in fact made up solely of higher-level stuff -- just as Elohim's original Creation was -- then it can only be described in metaphors of earthly things. And when you read Rev. 21-22 in this light...

 

Is anything impossible with God?  He is not limited by the things we are. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Butero,

 

The point about Acts 15 is that IF Gentile believers are considered "Jews"  after conversion, then that was the ideal time to bring this up.  That it doesn't make that case at all is telling.  This didn't occur three weeks after Pentecost.   This was decades later, and after Paul had written his letters to the Thessalonians and Galatians.   They would have been theologically equipped to understand that Gentiles are now Spiritual Jews, but they don't make the case.  That never occurs to them and it never occurs to Paul in any of His epistles.

 

If Gentile believers were "Jews" upon getting born again, the Bible would make the case directly and expressly.   You would have an direct and expressly made statement from the text that says just that.

 

My contention is that the olive tree metaphor never says that the wild olive branches are considered "natural" branches after grafting in.   The ONLY way the metaphor would support your position is if Paul declared the grafted in "wild" branches, as "natural" by virtue of being grafted in.    He still makes the differentiation all the way through the metaphor.   He calls them "wild" in the present tense, not the past tense.   And he mentions the natural branches in distinction from the ones that are wild.

 

They are not a 'good tree'    They are still wild.  Paul never makes he case that anything about who they are has changed.  I would also add that the "grafting in" is not a metaphor for salvation. 

 

Why would God want Gentiles to be Jews?   That really makes no sense.   It is not a sin  to be a Gentile and so being a Gentile is not something one needs to be redeemed from.  To argue that one is now a "Jew" after one is saved, means that it was wrong to be a Gentile and God had to make you into a Jew in order to be acceptable.   That goes contrary to the Gospel and to the "one new man"  doctrine of Paul in Ephesians 2

[Guest Butero]

Butero,

 

The point about Acts 15 is that IF Gentile believers are considered "Jews"  after conversion, then that was the ideal time to bring this up.  That it doesn't make that case at all is telling.  This didn't occur three weeks after Pentecost.   This was decades later, and after Paul had written his letters to the Thessalonians and Galatians.   They would have been theologically equipped to understand that Gentiles are now Spiritual Jews, but they don't make the case.  That never occurs to them and it never occurs to Paul in any of His epistles.

 

If Gentile believers were "Jews" upon getting born again, the Bible would make the case directly and expressly.   You would have an direct and expressly made statement from the text that says just that.

 

My contention is that the olive tree metaphor never says that the wild olive branches are considered "natural" branches after grafting in.   The ONLY way the metaphor would support your position is if Paul declared the grafted in "wild" branches, as "natural" by virtue of being grafted in.    He still makes the differentiation all the way through the metaphor.   He calls them "wild" in the present tense, not the past tense.   And he mentions the natural branches in distinction from the ones that are wild.

 

They are not a 'good tree'    They are still wild.  Paul never makes he case that anything about who they are has changed.  I would also add that the "grafting in" is not a metaphor for salvation. 

 

Why would God want Gentiles to be Jews?   That really makes no sense.   It is not a sin  to be a Gentile and so being a Gentile is not something one needs to be redeemed from.  To argue that one is now a "Jew" after one is saved, means that it was wrong to be a Gentile and God had to make you into a Jew in order to be acceptable.   That goes contrary to the Gospel and to the "one new man"  doctrine of Paul in Ephesians 2

I have a few things I need to respond to here.  First of all, Paul was straightening out the Christian church many years after the church was first established on a whole host of issues.  The church was established in A.D. 33, and this event you are speaking of in Acts 15 occurred in approximately A.D. 51.  Romans was thought to have been written in A.D. 60.  No, I don't think all the questions over doctrinal matters were known by that time. 

 

Why would God want gentiles to become Jews?  Being a Jew wasn't the natural state of anyone.  God chose a man named Abraham, and his son Isaac, and from Isaac came the first Jews.  He didn't leave them in their natural state of origin.  At one time, Abraham would have been a gentile.  The Jews are people that worship the true and living God, and the gentiles were outcasts, without the knowledge of Jehovah.  They were idol worshippers.  It was a bad thing to be a gentile.  They were called wild olive branches, while the Jewish tree was called a good tree.  Why would God cut the gentiles out of their own tree if they were fine as they were?  He could have left them as they were. 

 

This does cause me to have a question for you.  Do you believe that Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians must live by different standards?  If the Jewish Christians are the only ones in a direct covenant relationship with God, doesn't it make sense they have different responsibilities?  I know some Messianic Jews that still keep the Saturday Sabbath and honor all the feast days.  Should they?  After all, in Acts 15, according to you, the general council was speaking of only gentile believers when it says they only have to keep a handful of laws.  If what you are saying is true, it makes no sense that there is only one body.  There has to be two bodies of believers under two covenants.  Do you really believe there is just one body, or do you think there are two?