the bride of Christ

[Guest shiloh357]

I didn't say that all of the issues of doctrine were known by that time, but there is no evidence that they thought that Gentiles were "Jews" upon conversion.  That doctrine occurs nowhere in the New Testament.  And by the time we get to Acts 15 a lot has happened. Paul is already writing his epistles.    So they were theologically advanced enough to know that if Gentile believers were Jews, it would have been made clear, ESPECIALLY in Romans which is the magna carta of the Church.  Romans is the deepest and most complete explanation of redemption in the New Testament and it was written by the aged Paul, not the brand new convert, who didn't understand.   It as written by the man who was personally taught by Jesus in the desert for three years.  So if Gentile believers are Jews, it would have come up by that point.

 

Actually, Jews are not counted through Abraham or Isaac.  It is counted through Jacob.  

 

You are pushing the metaphor beyond what it was meant to convey.   If God thought it was wrong to be a Gentile, why did he make 99% of the world Gentiles?    God didn't graft them into the Jewish people.   The olive tree represents the commonwealth of Israel.   The Jews are the branches, not the trunk.   God grafted the gentiles into the roots.   That's where you always graft a new branch.  You don't graft into the other branches.   Grafting takes place at the root level and the roots of this tree are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  That why Paul said that the wild branches are supported by the root.  

 

They are grafted in order to partake of the blessings of Abraham, they are not grafted into the Jews.

 

Your last question is rather strange.   Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians have the same New Testament and live by the same standards.  If Jewish Christians want to retain their cultural heritage, then fine.  It has nothing to do with being two bodies. 

[Guest Butero]

I didn't say that all of the issues of doctrine were known by that time, but there is no evidence that they thought that Gentiles were "Jews" upon conversion.  That doctrine occurs nowhere in the New Testament.  And by the time we get to Acts 15 a lot has happened. Paul is already writing his epistles.    So they were theologically advanced enough to know that if Gentile believers were Jews, it would have been made clear, ESPECIALLY in Romans which is the magna carta of the Church.  Romans is the deepest and most complete explanation of redemption in the New Testament and it was written by the aged Paul, not the brand new convert, who didn't understand.   It as written by the man who was personally taught by Jesus in the desert for three years.  So if Gentile believers are Jews, it would have come up by that point.

 

Actually, Jews are not counted through Abraham or Isaac.  It is counted through Jacob.  

 

You are pushing the metaphor beyond what it was meant to convey.   If God thought it was wrong to be a Gentile, why did he make 99% of the world Gentiles?    God didn't graft them into the Jewish people.   The olive tree represents the commonwealth of Israel.   The Jews are the branches, not the trunk.   God grafted the gentiles into the roots.   That's where you always graft a new branch.  You don't graft into the other branches.   Grafting takes place at the root level and the roots of this tree are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  That why Paul said that the wild branches are supported by the root.  

 

They are grafted in order to partake of the blessings of Abraham, they are not grafted into the Jews.

 

Your last question is rather strange.   Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians have the same New Testament and live by the same standards.  If Jewish Christians want to retain their cultural heritage, then fine.  It has nothing to do with being two bodies. 

When I said that Jews are all able to trace their roots back to Isaac, I am referring to the fact he was the child of promise, and all of his descendants are Jews.  I realize it was Jacob that was first called Israel.  Jesus himself mentions to his audience in one place that they think they are children of God because they are Abraham's seed.  Isn't it strange he doesn't say Jacob's seed? 

 

I want to explore the trees further.  We have a wild olive tree and a good tree.  You say the olive tree represents the commonwealth of Israel.  What does the wild olive tree represent?  Now, if the tree represents the commonwealth of Israel, that means the gentile believers are cut out of the wild tree and made part of the commonwealth of Israel.  Here is another question for you.  Lets suppose a gentile wants to convert to Judaism.  Is it or is it not possible for that to take place?  I have heard people claim they converted to Judaism, and they were then considered Jewish.  Why would that not be the same case in the spiritual realm? 

[saved34]

Butero, that is the whole point of Christ's Church. This was the mystery that was not revealed in the old testament. Not that the Gentiles would be saved, because that was revealed in the Old Testament. God promised that all the Nations would be blessed by the "Seed of Abraham"(which is Christ Jesus). The mystery was the creation of the one new man, Jew and Gentile in one Body.

 

There is no explaining it away, it is clear and scriptural. Paul, the 12 Apostles, the 120 in the upper room, and millions of Jews who believe are the remnant of Jews who are distinguished from the natural Jews. We find our identity in Christ, not Israel. We have Christ as our head, and we are fully complete in him. Paul was simply making a point to Gentiles not to boast against Israel because God has temporarily blinded them, but to understand that through Christ(a Jew by natural posterity), we are saved. He was sent to the Jew first, and being rejected(by God's design) he would now be offered to all nations. 

 

Joh 4:22  You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 

Joh 4:23  Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 

[saved34]

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.

 

Hi Marilyn, the Promise that God made to Abraham is not just for the Jews. I don't know your personal stance on that. But scripture is clear that the Promised seed is Christ, and that through Christ all nations shall be blessed. 

 

Rom 4:16  Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 

Rom 4:17  As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not. 

 

Gal 3:14  He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 

 

Am I reading you correct in that you deny the New Testament is really the New Covenant? You went a long way in trying to distinguish between a Covenant and a Testament, but it's not adding up. When Christ says his Body and Blood is what dedicates this Testament, you do not see any connection between this and the Old Covenant that God made in that animals had to be sacrificed, Priests had to serve in earthly tents, and wear specialty garbs that represented or were made in pattern to heavenly things?

[Marilyn C]

 

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.

Hi Marilyn, the Promise that God made to Abraham is not just for the Jews. I don't know your personal stance on that. But scripture is clear that the Promised seed is Christ, and that through Christ all nations shall be blessed.

 

Rom 4:16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring--not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Rom 4:17 As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations." He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed--the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that were not.

Gal 3:14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Am I reading you correct in that you deny the New Testament is really the New Covenant? You went a long way in trying to distinguish between a Covenant and a Testament, but it's not adding up. When Christ says his Body and Blood is what dedicates this Testament, you do not see any connection between this and the Old Covenant that God made in that animals had to be sacrificed, Priests had to serve in earthly tents, and wear specialty garbs that represented or were made in pattern to heavenly things?

Hi saved34,

I do so like it when people ask questions for then I think, now `how can I say this more clearly.` It is a good challenge & thank you, saved. Also I do like talking with you as you have a good attitude & give time for a person to develop their thoughts.

I believe the everlasting Covenant is what God the Father made with God the Son, as they counselled together planning the whats, the hows & wherefores of their plans & purposes to redeem & restore etc creation. This to me is the `whole covenant.`

Now a sub set of that, I believe, is the testament, the `last will & testament` as it were of Christ who died & left an inheritance. It is only a part of the whole covenant. It is not all of what is planned, just the inheritance part for people.

`For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.` (Heb. 9: 16 & 17)

Thus `the last will & testament` of Jesus, (in earthly terms) would look like this –

I, Jesus, in my last will & testament do bequeath to –

1. My brethren in Israel...........................................

2. My `body of believers,`........................................

3. The other nations,................................................

Signed Jesus.

Hope this is clearer. Marilyn.

[Guest shiloh357]

Butero,

 

Do you  understand what a "commonwealth" is?    Australia and Ireland are part of a "commonwealth" of England.  So is Canada.   They are not British, but they have a special relationship to the British people.  If someone attacked Ireland militarily, Britain would come to Ireland's aid as if Britain itself were being attacked.

 

Gentiles are grafted into the roots of the olive tree and though not Jewish, they have a special relationship to the Jews and to Israel.  They are not "Israel"  but they brought into a covenant community by faith and are counted as the spiritual seed of Abraham. 

 

Conversion to Judaism is a another issue altogether.   Judaism isn't a biblical religion.  It is not religion of the Old Testament.   Judaism is a late first century adjustment to the loss of the temple.  It is essentially a form of Pharisaism.

 

The Bible never equates salvation with being "Jewish."   The word "Jew" every time it is used in the New Testament is always an ethnic term, never a spiritual one.   The same with "Israel."   "Israel"  is always referring to a people in the earth, and is never spiritualized to refer to Gentiles or the Church itself.     That's because in the first century, "the Church"  concept we have today, didn't exist.    What I mean is,   we see "the Church"  as a separate entity set apart from Israel, and Paul and the other apostles didn't see it that way.   Our concept of "the Church" is actually rooted in Catholicism.  That's why the Bible never refers to Christians as "spiritual Jews."    That is biblically untenable.   The concept of Gentile believers being spiritual Jews is a holdover from Replacement Theology of RCC.   They believed and still do believe that they are the New Israel and that they are now "Jews"  in a spiritual sense.  Protestants hate to admit it, but there is a residue of RCC theology in much of Protestantism.

 

One of the reasons, the olive tree metaphor is so confusing is that the paradigm, we are working from, namely that the church is separate from Israel, yet grafted into Israel, is an incoherent and  untenable position to hold.

 

Paul never says the "Church" is grafted into Israel.   That's where we make our mistake.   He says Gentiles are grafted in.  We are so accustomed to seeing "the Church" as a "Gentile" entity that two are practically interchangeable.

 

And that brings us back to why "the Church" is not the bride of Christ.    The New Testament had no theology of "the Church" that we have today as a entity separate from Israel.  Gentile Believers were being grafted into or joined to Israel.  They were not joining "the Church."  

 

I am not saying there is no Church.   I am saying that how we view the Church is post biblical and is rooted in a Catholic paradigm.  The New Testament's take on the Church makes clear that it is congregation called out and set apart for Christ.  but it is called out and set apart from the world, not necessarily Israel.

[Guest Butero]

Here is the problem with what you are saying Shiloh.  You say that the good olive tree is the commonwealth of Israel.  Not only does it say in Romans that the gentile believers are graffed into that olive tree, but it says that Jews who fail to accept Christ are cut out of that olive tree.  If we are speaking of an ethnic term, and not a spiritual one, how can that be?  Look at what that means.  It means that many of the people that are part of the commonwealth of Israel because they can trace their roots back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have no part in the commonwealth of Israel because they are not Christians, yet many gentiles who cannot trace their roots back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob do.  If it was in the natural, the Jews could not be cut out of their own tree (the commonwealth of Israel) because of unbelief. 

 

You say the church is not graffed into Israel, the gentiles are.  That is not entirely true, because it is not speaking of all gentiles.  It is only speaking of gentiles that accept Christ.  The gentiles that don't accept Christ are not graffed in to the good tree you refer to as the commonwealth of Israel, and the Jews that don't accept Christ are cut out of the good tree you refer to as the commonwealth of Israel.  If it is not gentile members of "the church" that are graffed in, who is it?  When we speak of the church, we are speaking of followers of Christ, not a hold over doctrine from Catholicism.  Now, do protestants have doctrines that originated in Catholicism?  I would suspect they do, but even though the Catholic Church has many errors in their beliefs, not all of their teachings are wrong.  Like most churches, there is some truth mixed in with the false teachings. 

 

BTW, if the good olive tree is the commonwealth of Israel, what is the wild olive tree? 

[Guest shiloh357]

Butero,

 

When I said "The Gentiles are grafted in,"   I was taking for granted that you were smart enough to understand that I was referring to Gentile believers.  I think from the overall context anyone would have been able to make that deduction.

 

I am not saying that "Israel" is not used in spiritual terms.  I said that it is not spiritualized to refer to Gentile believers.  

 

Catholics may not be wrong on EVERY point, but the notion  the Church is a separate entity from biblical Israel and now replaces biblical, IS wrong and so trying to whitewash Catholic beliefs won't help your case.   All it proves is that you can't address the substance of my points.

[Guest Butero]

You came out and stated that the good tree was the commonwealth of Israel, and you further stated that being Jewish is an ethnic term, not a spiritual term.  As such, I felt the need to mention that only gentile believers were graffed in and Jewish non-believers were cut out.  If Jew is speaking of an ethnic term, how can a natural born Jew be cut out?  That doesn't make any sense.  You stated that the good tree is the commonwealth of Israel, but you never stated what the wild tree is?  The church is not "gentile," and I never said it was.  If anything, I am saying the church is Jewish, and people that come to Christ from gentile nations become adopted Jews.  I am saying just the opposite of what others are saying. The bottom line is, all of this is spiritual, not ethnic, or the unbelieving Jews couldn't be cut out of their own tree and believing gentiles couldn't be graffed in. 

[Guest shiloh357]

It is an ethnic term.  It is always referring to the Jews.  I did not say it was not a spiritual term.  I said it was not spiritualized to refer to Gentiles, same as with Israel.  A good example of what I mean is Rom. 9:6 where Israel is used to refer to both ethnic Israelites and ethnic Israelites/Jews who are believers.   

 

The Church is not "Jewish" and the Bible never claims it is.   The Church is "one new man"  mentioned in Ephesians two which is made up of Jews and Gentiles.  

 

Why do I need to define the wild olive tree?   Paul already does.   If you want to know what it is, read your Bible.