Ron Amnsn Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 That's quite a theory you have there Ed, but it seems you decided where you were going and then went looking for evidence to prop it up. In each of the cases you mentioned,the blessing of birthright was specifically given to another son, rather than to the firstborn, by the father, the grandfather, or by God himself. Where in scripture does it say that the church received the blessing that normally would have gone to Israel? Nowhere. God's blessing was given to the nation of Israel at Sinai. In no case was the birthright blessing given to a son and then later revoked and given to someone else. Even when Isaac realized he had been fooled and wanted to give the blessing to Esau, it could not be done. After Jacob had received the birthright blessing, did he ever try to bolster his ownership of that blessing by claiming to be the "spiritual Esau"? Did Isaac claim to be "spiritual Ishmael"? No, such a claim would have been ridiculous. So why is it necessary for the church to claim to be "spiritual Israel"? If the blessings of Israel had in reality been revoked from Israel and transfered to the church there would be no need for such a claim. In the case of God transfering the kingdom from Saul to David, God specifically told both Saul and David in no uncertain terms that the kingdom was being transfered. Even Saul's heir knew that God would give the kingdom to David. Where in scripture did God declare the same sort of transfer from Israel to the church? Actually God says through the prophet Jeremiah that such a transfer is impossible-- that his covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel will continue as long as there is day and night. (Jer. 33) I can't see any textual evidence in 1 Cor 15 that shows that Paul intended to apply the "natural" and "spiritual" concept to Israel and the church. Your application of what you call a "principle" (which you derive from 1 Cor 15:46) directly contradicts what Paul stated explicitly in Romans 11. Speaking of the unbelieving Israelites Paul says, "[:"blue"]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; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable[/]." Your claim that the second temple was "spiritually" superior to the first seems to lack scriptural support. Although it was still God's house, Jesus said that the temple of his day had been turned into "a den of theives". It also lacked the ark of the covenant and the shekinah glory. It was later destroyed as Jesus predicted it would be. If God's blessing was actually transfered away from the nation of Israel, as you claim, and given to the apostolic church, then why don't Christian churches today follow the example of that original apostolic congregation in Jerusalem? Why aren't churches today zealous for the law of Moses as that congregation was? (Acts 21:20) Why don't churches today follow the Torah-observant lifestyle of Jesus as that original congregation did? Except for its belief that Jesus was the Messiah, that original congregation was virtually indistinguishable from the Israelites of that day. But today's church has no Israelite characteristics to speak of. Instead, the church today separates itself from the Israelite people. It seems rather strange that the lifestyle of Christians who now claim to be part of "spiritual Israel" bears almost no resemblance to the lifestyle of that original church congregation at Jerusalem? God himself told Moses to proclaim, "[:"blue"]Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My firstborn.'[/]" (Ex 4:21). Since at that point in time the man named Israel was long dead, we know that God was talking about the nation of Israel. Is there any place in Scripture where God makes a similar statement about the church, the so-called "spiritual Israel"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Quote: God himself told Moses to proclaim, "[:"blue"]Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My firstborn.'[/]" (Ex 4:21). [:"red"] "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."[/] Galatians 3:29 NKJV Lift Jesus up!! Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Quote: 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there buster Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Quote: That's quite a theory you have there Ed, but it seems you decided where you were going and then went looking for evidence to prop it up. 1) It is no theory. It is the historical record. 2) I didn't "decide where I was going." I read Paul, saw him enunciate a principle, and explored it. Quote “the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts.” George Orwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Amnsn Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Quote: [:"red"] "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."[/] Galatians 3:29 NKJV Absolutely! But we don't displace the other heirs of Abraham, the Israelites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Amnsn Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 Quote: 15Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. How does this relate to the current discussion? In the same passage it also says that the veil is removed when a person turns to the Lord. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted March 1, 2005 Share Posted March 1, 2005 Quote: Quote: [:"red"] "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."[/] Galatians 3:29 NKJV Absolutely! But we don't displace the other heirs of Abraham, the Israelites. Based upon the Scriptures there is no doubt in my mind of that reality for the body of Christ as a whole. But it does appear that on an individual basis, replacement does play a role. [:"red"] "...we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews." [/] John 4:22 NKJV [:"red"] "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!...God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew..So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace...Did God's people stumble and fall beyond recovery? Of course not...But some of these branches from Abraham's tree, some of the Jews, have been broken off. And you Gentiles, who were branches from a wild olive tree, were grafted in...But you must be careful not to brag about being grafted in to replace the branches that were broken off. Remember, you are just a branch, not the root." [/] Romans 11:1,2,5,11,17,18 Lift Jesus up!! Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_McQueen Posted March 5, 2005 Author Share Posted March 5, 2005 Just to add to the twist, the Midrash and other Jewish literature suggest that Hagar and Keturah are one of the same. So that being the case wouldn't Ishmael and his other siblings as well as Isaac be blessed as Abraham's ofspring Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.