Israel in Prophecy

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So there is apparently still something special about being a natural Israelite.

---

Actually, that's precisely the point Paul makes in 1 Cor. 15. We are not grafted into natural Israel, but into spiritual Israel.

If they were naturally a part of Israel, why would they need to be grafted in?

One can be born a natural Israelite, i.e., a Jew "according to the flesh," and become grafted into spiritual Israel.

What Paul is saying is that natural Jews, i.e., Jews by blood, should have an even greater affinity to being grafted in.

---

I must have missed something in 1 Corinthians 15. Which verses are talking about "spiritual" Israel? It looks to me like Paul is talking about natural physical bodies of individuals who will be raised as spiritual bodies at the resurrection. It doesn't say anything about not being grafted into natural Israel.

Paul's illustration about being grafted into the tree of Israel in Romans 11 specifically says that the Jewish branches that are broken off the tree can be re-grafted back onto the same tree that they originally grew on. Are you saying that these natural Israelite branches grew up as part of what you call "spiritual Israel" but were nevertheless somehow broken off? Why?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,

10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

11 For there is no partiality with God.

Obviously, the non-partiality of God still allows for the Jews to be "first". That's a racial thing, isn't it?

---

Not at all. It's a matter of responsibility, and judgment.

Quote:

---

For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; 1 Pet 4:17

---

That's based on a passage from Ezek. 9. Judgment starts with "the family of God" because they have the knowledge of God. With this knowledge comes responsibility, and thus accountability.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I must have missed something in 1 Corinthians 15.

---

The principle is enunciated in verse 46.

Quote:

---

The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

---

As far as grafting goes, I repeat my question: If they were naturally a part of Israel, why would they need to be grafted in?

It is you who have people being grafted into natural Israel, not I.

In v. 46, Paul has identified a principle, born out in the OT record, which illuminates this issue.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

2. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek or Gentile; that when we belong to Christ, then we are Abraham's offspring, heirs to the promises also. This is obviously not talking about blood descendants, rather this is spiritual kinship.

---

This is talking about adoption into Israel. We become fellow heirs with the original natural descendants of Jacob.

When we accept Jesus as our Lord, we become slaves or servants of a Jew. I think the Torah specifies that servants and slaves of a Jewish man (like Jesus) become part of the Jewish household and thus part of the commonwealth of Israel and subject to the laws of Israel. (I may be wrong about this... haven't studied that part of Torah recently).

When God gave the covenant to Abraham, all the males in his household were circumcised whether they were related by blood or not.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

As far as grafting goes, I repeat my question: If they were naturally a part of Israel, why would they need to be grafted in?

It is you who have people being grafted into natural Israel, not I.

---

Indeed, In Romans 11 Paul is talking about being grafted in to the root of Israel. Otherwise there would be no need to remind the Gentile believers not to be arrogant, no need to remind the Gentiles that they are supported by the root (not the other way around).

The reason that natural Israelites would need to be grafted back in is because the Torah stipulates that Israelites who disobey in certain ways are to be "cut off from their people", that is separated from God's covenant people. Paul says the the branches were broken off for their unbelief.

As to your application of 1 Cor. 15... that is too far a stretch for me. Even if Paul was alluding to natural Israel and "spiritual Israel" (and I see no contextual evidence that he was), his allusion would in no way negate the covenants that God made with the physical descendants of Abraham, Jacob, and the mixed multitude at Sinai. God is a covenant keeper.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

3. In Dan 9, "70 wks" or 490 yrs were given to them to "finish transgression, to make an end of sin, etc. etc.". That ended 2k yrs ago.

---

Daniel 9:24 says, "[:"blue"]Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place.[/]" (NASB)

It sounds to me like these things were things that the Messiah would do, not things that Israel must do in order to keep from being rejected from God's covenants. Actually, Daniel was familiar with the writings of Jeremiah, and Jeremiah 33 specifically says that God would not revoke his covenant with the descendants of Jacob as long as there are day and night. (verse 24) Since we still have day and night, we know that God's covenant with literal Israel still continues as well.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

4. Jesus, recognizing that that prophecy was about to be fulfilled told them, "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate" Mt 23:38. On Tuesday of the Passion Week, He gave them the parable of the vine-growers. Because they refused to give the owner his due, the sentence pronounced was that the vineyard was to be given to others, Mk 12. Contrary to what our evangelical brethren believe, no, present Israel cannot no longer be God's chosen. Present day Israel is very secular, and the religious ones still have the veil over their eyes & still wait for a Messiah to come the first time.

---

In Matthew 23:38 was Jesus talking to all the natural descendants of Israel, or only to a select group? In Scriptures, does having a desolate or empty house equate with being rejected as a covenant nation? Who's house was going to be emptied? And for how long?

The parable of the vine growers in Mark 12 is parallel in many ways to Isaiah 5, where it describes a similar vineyard, and in verse 7 it says "[:"blue"]For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel And the men of Judah His delightful plant.[/]" (NASB) In Jesus' parable, it was those who tended the vineyard who were rejected, not the vines and plants of the vineyard itself. This might indicate a change of leadership for Israel, comparable to when God transfered the Kingdom from Saul's household to David's household. In this case it seems that Jesus was indicating that the leadership was going to be transferred from the political/religous leaders of the day to the apostles (as in Matt 16:17-19).

The present-day State of Israel is very secular, and I don't believe its government represents the legitimate leadership of the remaining Israelites. At any rate, most Jews do not presently live in the country of Israel, so at best the modern country of Israel is only a portion of the descendants of Jacob. If the country were governed by Torah, I think most of the secular Jews would be cut off from the covenant people. The religious Jews are now blinded by their traditions, but in Romans 11:25 Paul indicates that there is a reason for this. And he also states that all of literal Israel is beloved for the sake of their forefathers -- not because of any merit of their own. Of course, that is completely in line with the original covenants God gave to their forefathers.

On the other hand, the land of Israel (the hills, mountains, and valleys) is certainly still significant in Bible prophecy for Jesus and the New Jerusalem will arrive there, and other events will happen there as well.

If you haven't recently read the actual covenants God made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Israelites, it might be good to review what God actually promised to them and their descendents.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the

Jew first

and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the

Jew first

and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. Obviously, the non-partiality of God still allows for the Jews to be "first". That's a racial thing, isn't it?

---

Then since He is our example, then it is okay of you to be racist also! Something is amiss with your theology….Your understanding.

The Bible states that God choose Abram because he was willing to take God at His word. Remember that God strives with all men….When the Lord returns the 2nd time He poses the question, “Will I find faith”? The same was probably true in the days of Abram….Abram happened to respond to God's promise!

Paul tells us that Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL THE NATIONS SHALL BE BLESSED IN YOU.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.” [Gal 3:7-9]

Why would all nations be blessed through Abraham? Well as I stated, Abraham responded to God’s promise. Further more God wanted a people to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. But unlike Abraham, they rejected and murdered their God….

So then, “it is not the natural children [the Jews] who are God’s children [people], but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” Rom 9:8

[there buster]

Quote:

---

As to your application of 1 Cor. 15... that is too far a stretch for me. Even if Paul was alluding to natural Israel and "spiritual Israel" (and I see no contextual evidence that he was), his allusion would in no way negate the covenants that God made with the physical descendants of Abraham, Jacob, and the mixed multitude at Sinai.

---

Tell me, which child received the spiritual leadership of the family?

[Robert]

Read this!

[there buster]

Quote:

---

The reason that natural Israelites would need to be grafted back in is because the Torah stipulates that Israelites who disobey in certain ways are to be "cut off from their people", that is separated from God's covenant people. Paul says the the branches were broken off for their unbelief.

---

As you noted, Paul says they were cut off because of unbelief. Therefore, from his point of view, connection to the vine is a matter of belief, not blood (sap?).

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

Then since He is our example, then it is okay of you to be racist also!

---

Is it racist to recognize the special status that God has granted to Israel (and to those who choose to join Israel)? When we enter the New Jerusalem, we will enter through gates named after the 12 tribes of Israel -- there will be no gate named for any other nation nor for any Christian denomination. (Rev 21:12) Apparently the special status of the descendants of Jacob will endure into the future. Is that racist?

Quote:

---

Something is amiss with your theology….Your understanding.

---

That may be. However, God's word is true and can be trusted, even when it isn't "politically correct".

Quote:

---

Why would all nations be blessed through Abraham? Well as I stated, Abraham responded to God’s promise. Further more God wanted a people to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. But unlike Abraham, they rejected and murdered their God….

---

How many of the Israelites actually rejected Messiah? A few politically appointed leaders and the rabble. Did the actions of those few men cause God to forget the Israelites who were scattered throughout the world and His promises to regather those people of Israel? No.

Actually, it was the Romans who murdered Jesus, at the request of the Jews. But as Peter said, "[:"blue"]And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;[/]" (Acts 3:17-19 NASB)

Notice that Peter doesn't say anything about God rejecting Israel as a nation as result of what the Jewish rulers did to Jesus. Rather, Peter says that God used the events in order to fullfil the Old Testament prophecies. So there is no reason to believe that God will not continue to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies regarding the descendants of Israel. One of the necessary goals of Jesus' life on earth was to die for the sins of the world. If the whole world had accepted him as Messiah, how would Jesus have died? Perhaps at the hand of the high priest acting in obedience, as Abraham acted in regards to the sacrifice of Isaac.

The book of Acts tells us that tens of thousands of Jews believed in Jesus. So it would be blatantly false to assert that the Jewish people as a whole rejected Jesus. (Acts 12:20)

Quote:

---

So then, “it is not the natural children [the Jews]

who are God’s children [people]

, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” Rom 9:8

---

This passage is often mis-applied as you have done. If you go back and read it in context you will see that what it actually says is "it is not the natural children [ishmaelites] who are God's people, but it is the children of the promise [that Sarah would have a son] who are God's people."

Actually, I'm surprised you would quote from this passage where Paul is proving that it is within God's perogative to choose one group of people over another group of people for no other reason than that God so chooses. Isaac was chosen, not Ishmael. Jacob was chosen, not Esau. Paul's conclusion to this discourse is stated in Romans 11 -- that the Gentiles who believe the promises are grafted in among the natural branches of Israel.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Even if Paul was alluding to natural Israel and "spiritual Israel" (and I see no contextual evidence that he was), his allusion would in no way negate the covenants that

God made with the physical descendants of Abraham, Jacob, and the mixed multitude at Sinai. God is a covenant keeper.

---

There are two covenants:

Gal 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. 24 These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. [:"blue"] One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar....[/][:"red"] 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.... 28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise [the original Abrahamic covenant].[/]

The physical descendants were promised salvation through Abraham's seed: Gal 3:16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

Through Abraham's seed the Savior of the World would be born. Abraham's descendants were promised salvation through Him. Instead they opted for the covenant at Sinai. That is why Paul states the following concerning Israel:

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved”….Rom 9:27 RSV

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people [those from Abraham]? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew [in Abraham]. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they [israel] have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time [in Paul’s day] there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, [:"red"]then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.[/] 7 What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did [i.e., those who placed their faith in the promise delivered unto Abraham and his seed]

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

As you noted, Paul says they were cut off because of unbelief. Therefore, from his point of view, connection to the vine is a matter of belief, not blood (sap?).

---

Ed, I think you are confusing your metaphores. Jesus said, "I am the vine" (John 15:5), but Paul was talking about the olive tree of Israel (Romans 11) which comes from Jeremiah 11:16 where it says about house of Israel and the house of Judah:

[:"blue"]The Lord called you a thriving olive tree with fruit beautiful in form. But with the roar of a mighty storm he will set it on fire, and its branches will be broken.[/]

The the olive tree of Romans 11 can't represent Jesus (nor the church) unless you wrest the verses from their context. Paul specifies that the broken-off olive branches represent the non-believing Jews, and that those broken-off branches can also be re-grafted into their own olive tree where they had once grown. Since those non-believing Jews had never been connected to Jesus (nor the church), the olive trunk can not possibly represent Jesus.

Yes, maintaining a connection to the olive tree of Israel is a matter of belief (which results in actions), but being a natural branch (rather than a grafted-in branch) is a matter of the hereditary promises of God to Abraham and Jacob and their natural descendants.

In Romans 11 Paul specifies that the grafted-in gentile branches are grafted in among the natural branches that were not broken off. Thus it is plain that there was a remnant of Israel still attached to root stock, still the chosen people of God, still members of the covenants. We Gentiles who want to be grafted-in to God's chosen people of Israel can not go off on our own and start a "spiritual Israel" that is separate and distinct from natural Israel.

[there buster]

O.K., I misspoke about vine vs. tree. You got me.

That doesn't change the simple fact that if they were cut off because of unbelief, then being a part of the tree is a matter of belief, not origin.

The position I have consistently maintained is that Israel was always a community of belief, or faith, not blood. The olive tree confirms that.

If you have faith, as Abraham did, you are part of the tree, wherever your physical ancestors came from. If you do not believe, you are cut off. Belonging has always been a matter of spirituality, not physical descent.

As the issue of the birthright demonstrates.

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people [those from Abraham]? By no means! I am an Israelite myself,

a descendant of Abraham

, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew [in Abraham].

---

Romans 11:1 continues the discussion of Romans 10 where Paul is talking about unfaithful Israelites, not "[those from Abraham]" as you said. Paul makes this clear by calling himself an "Israelite" rather than a "child of Abraham". Paul was saying that God has not rejected the unfaithful Israelites. There were many aspects of God's convenant with Israel that were not dependent on obedience. For example the curses and punishments were an integral part of God's covenant with Israel that would only come into play while Israel was unfaithful. If Israel is still suffering the consequenses of disobedience to the covenant, then Israel is still under God's covenant.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

In Romans 11 Paul specifies that the grafted-in gentile branches are grafted in among the natural branches that were not broken off. Thus it is plain that there was a remnant of Israel still attached to rootstock, still the chosen people of God, still members of the covenants. We Gentiles who want to be grafted-in to God's chosen people of Israel can not go off on our own and start a "spiritual Israel" that is separate and distinct from natural Israel.

---

Chosen for what purpose? To bring forth the messiah - "the Savior of all men". The Jews were to deliver the good news of salvation to all men, but the majority rejected the gospel - Jesus Christ.

Paul is using the olive tree and its branches as an object lesson. You are making too much of his analogy. If I am saved through the Jews, then they become my Savior!

Remember that "in Christ" there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female....There are no distinctions - no partiality (which is sin)....There is only one way to heaven: Through Jesus Christ....Let's read that analogy shall we:

John 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off [abandons] every branch in me that bears no fruit [this includes self-righteousness, which is not fruit at all], while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You [both Jews and Gentiles] are already clean [where? “in Him”] because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me [by faith], and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me. 5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

If Israel is still suffering the consequenses of disobedience to the covenant, then Israel is still under God's covenant.

---

Yes, the old covenant...as are many Adventists! They are under a curse, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The just by faith will live."

[Ron Amnsn]

Quote:

---

Yes, the old covenant...as are many Adventists! They are under a curse, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly

no one is justified before God by the law

, because, “The just by faith will live."

---

Elijah, David, Joshua, Moses, Daniel, and Nehemiah all lived according to the terms of what you call the "old covenant". How were they justified? Were they under a curse?

Paul said that David was a man after God's own heart. That doesn't sound like a curse to me. If David could live like that under the terms of God's covenant with Israel, then there apparently wasn't much wrong with that covenant.

Perhaps you are misreading the intent of Paul's statements?

[Robert]

Gal3:6 ...Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. 7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith [both Jew and Gentile] who are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.” [Why? see verse 16] 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.

[On the other hand] 10...as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; [why?] for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The just by faith shall live.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who does them [keeps ALL the rules] by them shall he live.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” — 14 [why?] in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Elijah, David, Joshua, Moses, Daniel, and Nehemiah all lived according to the terms of what you call the "old covenant". How were they justified? Were they under a curse?

---

The covenant of grace [justification by faith] was established with Abraham, the father of faith!

The old covenant was established at Sinai! I can't speak for those named above as to what covenant they were under. I am sure King David wasn't under the covenant from Sinai for if he were he would have been stoned when he committed adultery and murder!

Here are the terms of the old covenant:

Obey and live:

Deut 28:1 “NOW it shall be, if you will diligently obey the LORD your God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. 2 “And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you will obey the LORD your God….

Disobey and die:

15 “But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you....The Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly....

[Robert]

The mistake that the Christian church has made is to "time-line" the old and new covenant. They insist that in the O.T. Israel was under the old covenant.....That covenant, they say, has been abolished. Now God has a new one, the new covenant....

Nothing could be so far from the truth! It was God who proposed the old covenant.... Israel complied when the said, "All that the lord has said we will do."

Why did a loving God do such a thing? After all He knew they couldn't keep the terms of the old covenant! Then why did He do it?

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!!!

Mankind is legalistic by nature....ALL men (including the disciples started out under the terms of the old covenant....Not that God comes and says, "do this or die"....In old times God spoke to us directly (or through His prophets)....On this end He speaks to us through His word (the Bible).

Like I said, we are legalist by nature....Good people don't need Jesus! Why? They look at all the good things they do...but they do not compare themselves to Christ.....Hence they remain in darkness.

When we start out we make God all sorts of promises to be good in return for salvation....We have entered the old covenant....God will use this to open our eyes....He will allow us to mentally and physically exhaust ourselves so that we can see our need of the New Covenant....

The old covenant was never given as a means or method of salvation. It was given to expose sin - especially the sin of pride and self-righteousness. Once this happens we can move from the Old to the new.... So, there are two covenants existing to this very day....

[there buster]

I repeat my question. Which child received the spiritual leadership of the family?

[Ron Amnsn]

Well, as a general rule it was the first-born son who became the family's spiritual leader. However, right from the beginning there were some noteable exceptions. Seth became the patriarch, rather than his first-born brother Cain. Jacob was chosen over Esau, even before they were born. And Ephraim, rather than his older brother Manasah, was given the bigger blessing by his grandfather Jacob.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

However, right from the beginning there were some noteable exceptions.

---

Actually, it's much more than that.

Paul enunciated the principle in 1 Cor 15:46

"The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual."

And the OT record bears it out. The firstborn is the "natural." And later comes the "spiritual" one. For example, we know of no significant cases where the firstborn actually received the birthright.

Seth 3rd

Isaac 2nd

Jacob 2nd

Joseph 7th?

Ephraim 2nd

Not only that, but the kings also demonstrate the principal.

The first King was Saul, physically "naturally" imposing, but a spiritual disaster.

The second King was David, a prophet, and spiritually superior. But even here, this principle reasserts itself.

David was not the firstborn of his house, but he was the first of his line "natuarally." But because of his murder of Uriah, he was not allowed to build the temple. That was left to the second, and more spiritual of his line.

The first temple was magnificent, as a physical structure. But the second temple was spiritually superior, blessed by the presence of Christ himself.

And then there's Paul's example. The first Adam the natural and physical progenitor of the race; and Christ, the second Adam the spiritual father of all the redeemed.

Thus it is the that "natural" ethnic Israel must give way to the second born, "spiritual" Israel--the church.