How Should Adventists View Modern Israel?

[Ron Amnsn]

e) At the end of the 70 week (or 490 year) prophecy of Daniel 9: 23-27, a probationary period of time for the Jewish people, Stephen was murdered and the gospel went quickly to the gentiles (See Acts 7 and 8). Before that, the disciples had been told to preach only to the "lost sheep of Israel" (Matt. 10: 6; 15: 24).

This is a common traditional interpretation of the prophecy, however neither history nor Scripture tell us what year Stephen was martyred. Nor do you find this interpretation of the prophecy explained in Scripture. Which verses of Scripture show that the 70 weeks was a "probationary" period for the Jewish nation after which they would be rejected as a nation?

Actually, the disciples were commissioned to go into the whole world as soon as the Holy Spirit was given at the Feast of Pentecost. Just before his ascension Jesus told them "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations", but he told them to wait in Jerusalem until they received power, which happened just 10 days later.

[Ron Amnsn]

If the Old Covenant was not done away with, there would have been no need for the New.

Where does Scripture teach this?

Paul says very clearly that a later covenant does not invalidate a previous covenant: "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise." (Gal 3:17 NASB)

[John317]

Quote:

When Paul and James were writing, the twelve tribes of literal Israel were still scattered among the nations where they had been dispersed. Only a handful Jews had returned from the Babylonian captivity at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The majority had remained in the nations where they had been dispersed.

What evidence is there that James and Paul would have known where the "twelve tribes" were? The last we hear of the 10 Northern tribes is when they were exiled by the king of Assyria, Sargon II, who deported them (about 730 BC) to Assyria, near the Caspian Sea and northeast of the Tigris River (2 Kings 17: 5,6). All this happened "because the Israelites had sinned against the Lord their God" (2 Kings 17: 7). They had refused to listen to all the prophets God had sent them, and therefore God did what He had warned them He would do as long ago as the time of Moses. (Compare Deut. 28 with 2 Kings 17: 7-23.)

As far as I know, there is no evidence that anyone knew where the 10 lost tribes were at the time of Paul and James. If they did, historians would be very interested in that information. That is why they are referred to as "lost." So it is highly unlikely that Paul or James would have addressed their letters to "the twelve tribes," especially when we know those letters were primarily going to Christians and not to Jews. See, for instance, James 2: 1 and 5: 7-8.

"The Israel of God" (Gal. 6: 16) is in contrast to "Israel according to the flesh" (1 Cor. 10: 18). It seems obvious to me, based on what Paul says elsewhere, that the NT church is the new seed of Abraham and the heir according to the promise. Please study prayerfully Gal. 3: 29; Romans 9: 6-8 and Phil. 3: 3.

Quote:

The terminology "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" shows rather that the writers realized that the Covenant promise of restoration after captivity was yet to be fulfilled.

Do you have further NT evidence of this? How then do you explain what Paul wrote in Gal. 3: 29; Rom. 9: 6-8 and Phil. 3: 3?

Also, what do you understand to have happened at the end of the 490 year prophecy of Daniel 9?

Could you write briefly how you see this "promise of restoration" being fulfilled? Do you believe modern Israel to be that fulfillment or part of the fulfillment?

Quote:

When Paul went to the Gentiles, he went first to the Jewish synagogues and preached the good news to the Jews and to the Gentiles who were meeting with the Jews. Those who believed did not distance themselves from literal Israel like modern Christians do.

I agree. They all worshiped together in the same synagogue on the Sabbath. Acts 14. It has been shown that the distance between gentiles and Jews came about for a number of reasons, political as well as religious. I've enjoyed worshipping with Jews at their synagogue on Friday nights.

Quote:

The scriptures don't say anything about "God's new Israel", that is an invention of Replacement Theology.[/quote']

You are right that the Bible does not contain the words, "God's new Israel," but the Bible does contain verses that clearly refer to gentile Christians as being "Abraham's descendants," "heirs according to the promise [made to Abraham]," which is virtually the same as calling them spiritual Israelites:

(1) Gal. 3: 29-- "If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed [descendants], and heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3: 29).

In other words, what's important to God is whether a person has faith in Christ, and not whether he is physically descended from Abraham.

(2) Romans 9: 6-8--

" But it is not as though (A) the word of God has failed ( For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel;

7 nor are they all children © because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "(D)THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are (E) children of God, but the (F) children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

Cross references:

A) Romans 9:6 : Num 23:19

Romans 9:6 : John 1:47; Rom 2:28; Gal 6:16

C) Romans 9:7 : John 8:33, 39; Gal 4:23

D) Romans 9:7 : Gen 21:12; Heb 11:18

E) Romans 9:8 : Rom 8:14

F) Romans 9:8 : Rom 4:13, 16; Gal 3:29; 4:28; Heb 11:11

3) Phil 3: 3-- "For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh."

Aren't we putting confidence in the flesh if we say that one's race makes one more special in some way to God? It seems to me that Paul consistently teaches against this concept.

4) Gal. 3: 28-- "There is neither Jew nor Greek... for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

I take the above verse to mean that before God one's physical descent or race does not matter; we all are saved the same through faith in Christ. Physical descent meant a lot under the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant ceased to exist and "faded away" when the New Covenant was ratified at the death of Christ (Hebrews 8: 13; 2 Cor. 3: 11).

How do you see it?

[Ron Amnsn]

There is all kinds of Biblical evidence that national Israel was filling its cup of rebellion and paving the way for Spiritual Israel. Some random thoughts:

1) God is not a racist. Some people think that he is obligated to save the Jews come what may -- in spite of their choices. This is a Calvinistic idea at heart. The promises to national Israel were conditional (as has been stated).

Where in Scripture do you find the concept that once the nation of Israel filled up a "cup of rebellion" that they would be discarded in favor of a group (never mentioned in Scripture) called "Spiritual Israel" (who have turned out to be even more rebellious than the Israelites)?

It is true that God is not racist. However the Scriptures do teach that inheritance is important. That's why the genealogies are recorded in Scripture, to show that the people in the story had legitimately inherited the covenants and the promises that God gave to their forefathers.

[John317]

There is actually quite a bit in the NT that shows the church is the new Israel. In the Sermon of the Mount, Jesus is portrayed as the new lawgiver in the place of Moses. As you mention, the 12 disciples represent the 12 tribes of "Israel," which actually consists of people of all nations and races. There is "the New Jerusalem," which will take its inhabitants from everywhere in the world.

I just don't see where the NT evidence is that the literal Jews are going to become God's specially favored people again. He does love them, of course, as much as He loves anyone.

If anyone wants to look into this subject, he can't do better than to go to the following site and get books, tapes, and videos by a Jewish-American author and student of the Bible, named Steve Wohlberg: by http://www.pickle-publishing.com/videos/israel-in-prophecy.htm#exp

[David Koot]

Where in Scripture do you find the concept that once the nation of Israel filled up a "cup of rebellion" that they would be discarded in favor of a group (never mentioned in Scripture) called "Spiritual Israel" (who have turned out to be even more rebellious than the Israelites)

[Ron Amnsn]

What evidence is there that James and Paul would have known where the "twelve tribes" were?

[...clipped...]

So it is highly unlikely that Paul or James would have addressed their letters to "the twelve tribes," especially when we know those letters were primarily going to Christians and not to Jews.

[John317]

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Ammundsen

The terminology "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" shows rather that the writers realized that the Covenant promise of restoration after captivity was yet to be fulfilled.

Do you have further NT evidence of this? How then do you explain what Paul wrote in Gal. 3: 29; Rom. 9: 6-8 and Phil. 3: 3?

The NT evidence is probably not enough to convince someone who believes that the NT superseded and disagrees with the Old Testament. But we need to remember that the NT believers did not have the New Testament, and that they believed the Old Testament was THE Scriptures. It was the OT that Paul was refering to when he wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:15-16)

Here is the NT evidence that I can think of:

• Just prior to the ascension of Jesus his disciples asked, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" This reveals the mindset and hope of Jewish believers in NT times. They wouldn't need to be convinced that the nation of Israel would be restored because they already believed what the OT taught in that regard. Although Jesus didn't answer the disciples question directly, there is nothing in his answer to show that he considered it to be an ignorant question, or that Jesus did not share their hope regarding the promise of restoration, or that Jesus was trying to shift the disciples beliefs toward the Adventist understanding of the OT prophecies about the restoration of Israel.
• Jesus commanded, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets."
• The primary lesson that Jesus was teaching in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was that we should listen to Moses and the Prophets: "But Abraham *said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'" (Luke 16:29) Nowhere did Jesus ever teach (or imply) that any of the OT prophecies would not be fulfilled.
• When Paul was on trial he testified that he believed "everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets;" (Acts 24:14) so it seems evident that we should believe the OT prophets as well.
• When Paul arrived at Berea, the Jews in the synagogue used the OT scriptures to determine whether Paul's teachings were true. (Acts 17:11) They found that Paul's gospel agreed with the OT (which teaches that literal Israel will be restored).
• In Revelation 7 the 144,000 from the 12 tribes of literal Israel are listed separately from the great multitude from all nations.
• Revelation 18:4 the voice from heaven calls God's people out of Babylon, which will fulfill the OT prophecies about the regathering of literal Israel. This regathering will also include everyone who has been grafted in to Israel through faith in Messiah.
• In Revelation 21 the gates of the New Jerusalem are inscribed with the names of the 12 tribes of literal Israel. (The names of the 12 apostles are inscribed separately on the 12 foundation stones.)

[Ron Amnsn]

More NT evidence:

• at the Last Supper Passover meal Jesus told his disciples that they would sit on thrones and judge the 12 tribes of Israel.(Luke 22:30) Because some of the 12 tribes were lost during the captivity (God still knows where they are), a regathering of Israel is necessary before Jesus' promise to the disciples can be fulfilled.
• On the road to Emmaus as Jesus explained the Old Testament prophecies to the two men he said, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!" (Luke 24:17) Wouldn't that include what the prophets said about the restoration of literal Israel?
• After Pentecost while Peter was preaching in the Temple he said Jesus would stay in heaven "until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (Acts 3:21) If there had been any doubt that the OT prophecies about Israel would be fulfilled, shouldn't Peter have been more specific about which things would be restored and which prophecies were "conditional" and would not be fulfilled?
• John 11:51-52 "Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." (NASB) John says that Jesus died for the literal nation of Judah, and indicates that God was also going to gather others together with Judah. It is quite likely that he was referring to the literal Israelites who had been scattered during captivity. The OT prophets predicted that the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel would be re-united at the time that Israel was restored. Of course, this would also include all the Gentiles who had been grafted into Israel by faith in Messiah.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you have further NT evidence of this? How then do you explain what Paul wrote in Gal. 3: 29; Rom. 9: 6-8 and Phil. 3: 3?

The NT evidence is probably not enough to convince someone who believes that the NT superseded and disagrees with the Old Testament. But we need to remember that the NT believers did not have the New Testament' date=' and that they believed the Old Testament was THE Scriptures. It was the OT that Paul was refering to when he wrote, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:15-16) [/quote']

In 2 Peter 3: 16, the Apostle Peter refers to some of Paul's letters as "Scriptures." Even at that early date, Peter clearly placed at least some of the New Testament writings on the same level of authority as the Old Testament. Peter was writing between AD 65 and 68. Paul's early books of 1 Thess. and Galatians, to which Peter may well have been referring, were written between AD 48 and 54, and certainly no later than AD 58.

When we read Paul's letters, we see evidence that he was himself aware that he was writing according to the will of God. His letters to the churches were God-breathed also and therefore authoritative and "Scripture."

Do you agree?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you have further NT evidence of this? How then do you explain what Paul wrote in Gal. 3: 29; Rom. 9: 6-8 and Phil. 3: 3?

Quote:

The NT evidence is probably not enough to convince someone who believes that the NT superseded and disagrees with the Old Testament.

Both the NT and OT are God-breathed and of equal authority. When taken in context' date=' I do not believe that there is a contradiction between them. However, they sometimes have the appearance of contradicting each other, just as the NT appears to contain contradictory verses, such as between the books of Romans and James.

The NT writers certainly were given more light than the Old Testament prophets had. This should not be surprising, since the light of truth gets progressively brighter and brighter. An example of this is that the book of Revelation is like an inspired commentary on the book of Daniel. We should read the Old Testament in the light of the New. For instance, when we read the Old Testament by itself, we may not understand the meaning of the sacrifices and other sanctuary rituals, but when we study the New Testament, we see that Christ as priest, lamb, light, bread, laver, ark, etc., illuminates and gives meaning to all of it.

Quote:

Here is the NT evidence that I can think of:[list']

[*]Just prior to the ascension of Jesus his disciples asked, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" This reveals the mindset and hope of Jewish believers in NT times. They wouldn't need to be convinced that the nation of Israel would be restored because they already believed what the OT taught in that regard. Although Jesus didn't answer the disciples question directly, there is nothing in his answer to show that he considered it to be an ignorant question, or that Jesus did not share their hope regarding the promise of restoration, or that Jesus was trying to shift the disciples beliefs toward the Adventist understanding of the OT prophecies about the restoration of Israel.

[*]Jesus commanded, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets."

As I'm sure you realize, the disciples had many wrong ideas, and Christ didn't correct these ideas all at once. That would have been hard for them to take. For instance, they believed the popular belief in their day, that the Messiah would throw out the Romans and set up an earthly kingdom. They did not expect Him to be crucified. That came as a great shock and disappointment to them. They really lost their faith in Jesus as the Messiah until He appeared to them. Remember that Peter had returned to fishing, and Thomas couldn't believe that Jesus was alive.

Therefore, the fact that the disciples had a certain understanding about the kingdom of Israel is not a strong argument that it is true. Jesus did not try to correct all their misunderstandings at once. He had told them, "There are many things I would like to tell you but you are not yet ready to hear them now."

Christ would wait until after his resurrection to teach them some things. Even quite a few years after the resurrection, however, Peter and James still had a very hard time accepting the idea that the gentiles were just as good in God's eyes as the Jews. They were wrong, and even after God showed Peter a vision several times, it took Paul's public admonishment to persuade Peter, finally, of the shocking significance of the truth that gentiles don't need to become Jews before God accepts them on an equal footing with physical Israel.

[olger]

It takes two hands to be a good bible student. Put your left hand under the OT and your right under the NT. Keep bringing those hands together. Let them speak of each other, and both will speak of Christ.

olger

[Ron Amnsn]

How do we know that any Israelite or Jew is a member of one of the ten lost tribes of Israel?

I think I said they were a member of the twelve tribes of Israel. It seems self-evident, but if I've overlooked something, let me know.

[John317]

It takes two hands to be a good bible student. Put your left hand under the OT and your right under the NT. Keep bringing those hands together. Let them speak of each other, and both will speak of Christ.

olger

That's good-- I like that!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

How do we know that any Israelite or Jew is a member of one of the ten lost tribes of Israel?

I think I said they were a member of the twelve tribes of Israel. It seems self-evident, but if I've overlooked something, let me know.

In the book of Revelation, chapters 7 and 14, the 144,000 are said to be members of particular tribes of Israel. These are not described as being a member of the twelve tribes. In other words, they are members of one of the tribes, not of all of them. So the question is, is that even possible today? This and many other things cause me to believe that it is to be understood symbolically or spiritually and not literally.

The same with James's address of his book to "the twelves tribes scattered abroad," when in all likelihood the "twelve tribes" no longer even existed at the time he wrote any more than they exist at the present moment.

A second question I have is, don't you believe that the Old Covenant came to an end? Do you believe the Old Covenant is still binding and effective? Wouldn't this conflict with such verses in the New Testament that say the Old Covenant is based on inferior promises, became obsolete and passed away? (See Hebrews 8: 13; 2 Cor. 3: 11, 13.) It seems to me that 2 Cor. 3: 11 definitely establishes that the Old Covenant passed away. "For if what is passing away [i.e., the Old Covenant] was glorious, what remains [the New Covenant] is much more glorious."

The Old Covenant was doomed to pass away but the Jews of Moses' day and even in Jesus' day could not see that because of their spiritual blindness, a blindness that is taken away only when one turns to the Lord Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of all the Old Covenant promises and types.

I would be very interested in understanding how you view these things.

[Ron Amnsn]

In 2 Peter 3: 16, the Apostle Peter refers to some of Paul's letters as "Scriptures." Even at that early date, Peter clearly placed at least some of the New Testament writings on the same level of authority as the Old Testament. Peter was writing between AD 65 and 68. Paul's early books of 1 Thess. and Galatians, to which Peter may well have been referring, were written between AD 48 and 54, and certainly no later than AD 58.

When we read Paul's letters, we see evidence that he was himself aware that he was writing according to the will of God. His letters to the churches were God-breathed also and therefore authoritative and "Scripture."

Do you agree?

Yes, certainly I agree.

However, the historical and logistical fact remains that the New Testament believers did not have the New Testament because it had not been published and distributed. The New Testament was just being written during the New Testament times. Even after they were written, they were not widely circulated. The book of Revelation was not written until the end of New Testament times.

When Paul wrote to Timothy telling him that "All Scripture ... was profitable ... " Timothy did not have access to the New Testament. It was the Old Testament Scriptures that Paul was endorsing. If we want to preach the same gospel that Paul was preaching, we need to endorse the Old Testament too.

Besides Paul's epistles in the NT, Peter may also have been referring to Paul's very first letter to the Corinthians or Paul's letter to the Laodiceans, neither of which ended up in the New Testament.

The Berean's were commended for using the Old Testament Scriptures to test Paul's teachings to see if Paul's teachings were true. If the Bereans could verify that Paul's teachings agreed with the Old Testament, we should be able to verify that too. The trouble is that much of what is taught today as "Paul's gospel" blatantly contradicts the Old Testament and would not pass the Bereans' NT method of determining Truth-- compare all teachings to the Old Testament.

If Paul had tried to teach the Bereans that the Israelite nation no longer had covenant status with God, the Bereans would have searched the Old Testament and found that such a teaching was false. When I use the same method that the Bereans were commended for using, I find that the teachings of "Replacement Theology" (also known as "supercessionalism") fail the NT test of Truth.

[Ron Amnsn]

Also, what do you understand to have happened at the end of the 490 year prophecy of Daniel 9?

Could you write briefly how you see this "promise of restoration" being fulfilled? Do you believe modern Israel to be that fulfillment or part of the fulfillment?

[Ron Amnsn]

In the Sermon of the Mount, Jesus is portrayed as the new lawgiver in the place of Moses.

I don't see this at all in the Sermon on the Mount. First, Moses was not the "lawgiver" -- the lawgiver was God. The founders of the SDA church taught that it was Christ himself who gave Moses the law. Are you saying that Jesus is portrayed as the "new lawgiver" as opposed to Christ the former lawgiver?

Secondly, it is erroneous to think that in the Sermon on the Mount the teachings of Jesus are being contrasted against the Law of Moses. Early in the sermon Jesus makes it clear that nothing in the written law would change "until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:18) It was the teachings of the oral law (the traditions of the elders) that were contrasted with the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. When Jesus quoted from the written Scriptures he would introduce it with, "It is written". But in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus used the phrase, "You have heard that it was said" to contrast his teaching with certain oral traditions of the Jewish sages and elders.

[Ron Amnsn]

As you mention, the 12 disciples represent the 12 tribes of "Israel," which actually consists of people of all nations and races.

I think it was Olger who suggested the twelve disciples represent the twelve tribes of Israel. That is interesting speculation. However, the only place where the Scriptures correlate the twelve disciples with the twelve tribes of Israel makes it clear that the NT does not replace the twelve tribes of Israelites with the twelve apostles. Jesus promised the disciples they would sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matt 19:28 & Luke 22:30) If we tried to say that the words "twelve tribes" in that passage were not the referring to the literal twelve tribes of Israelites but that instead they represented the "twelve apostles", it would turn this promise of Jesus to nonsense-- it would have the disciples sitting on the twelve thrones judging themselves introspectively.

When the NT speaks of the "twelve tribes of Israel", why can't we accept that it means exactly what it says (the same as when the OT speaks of the twelve tribes of Israel)?

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Ammundsen

Here is the NT evidence that I can think of:

• Just prior to the ascension of Jesus his disciples asked, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" This reveals the mindset and hope of Jewish believers in NT times. They wouldn't need to be convinced that the nation of Israel would be restored because they already believed what the OT taught in that regard. Although Jesus didn't answer the disciples question directly, there is nothing in his answer to show that he considered it to be an ignorant question, or that Jesus did not share their hope regarding the promise of restoration, or that Jesus was trying to shift the disciples beliefs toward the Adventist understanding of the OT prophecies about the restoration of Israel.

As I'm sure you realize, the disciples had many wrong ideas, and Christ didn't correct these ideas all at once. That would have been hard for them to take. For instance, they believed the popular belief in their day, that the Messiah would throw out the Romans and set up an earthly kingdom. They did not expect Him to be crucified. That came as a great shock and disappointment to them. They really lost their faith in Jesus as the Messiah until He appeared to them. Remember that Peter had returned to fishing, and Thomas couldn't believe that Jesus was alive.

Therefore, the fact that the disciples had a certain understanding about the kingdom of Israel is not a strong argument that it is true.

I agree that by itself it is no proof. But it does establish a reference point at the beginning of the book of Acts to help interpret the rest of the New Testament, for all of the NT was written after that point in time. And it establishes the mindset of Jews to whom Paul and the apostles ministered and wrote.

If their belief at this point in time was considered erroneous, then we should expect to see the author of Acts and the other NT writers clearly correct that erroneous belief, as was done when Peter and the believers had erroneously believed the oral Jewish tradition that Gentiles were inherently unclean and must become Jews in order to be saved. (Acts 10 and Gal 2)

Where is the NT evidence that the apostles rejected what they believed about the restoration of literal Israel at the beginning of Acts? I have looked for that evidence and have not found it.

The Roman church that Constantine established was steeped in antisemitism. They developed numerous traditions and interpretations to try to de-Judaize the New Testament. Protestants inherited from the Roman church a mindset against Israel that is at odds with the mindset of the apostles presented at the beginning of Acts. Protestants read the NT with the assumption (based on tradition) that God had rejected Israel as a nation. But the NT was written by men who started out (just before the ascension) with the opposite assumption (based on Scripture) -- that God would restore literal Israel as prophesied by the OT prophets. Wouldn't we get a clearer understanding of the NT if we read it with the same mindset as those who wrote it and read it originally?

[Ron Amnsn]

The same with James's address of his book to "the twelves tribes scattered abroad," when in all likelihood the "twelve tribes" no longer even existed at the time he wrote any more than they exist at the present moment.

One of God's promises to Jacob was, "Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Gen 28:14 NASB) I believe that God has kept that promise to Jacob even though his descendants were disobedient to God. Although we don't know where all the descendants of Jacob are, God knows where they are. If you do the math, you'll find that the odds are high that you too are a direct descendant of Jacob. You had millions of ancestors. If just one of those individuals had any Israelite blood in them, then you too are descended from one of the tribes of Jacob.

As a Jew of royal descent, of the line of David, James was very aware that the kingdom of Israel had not yet been restored, and that tribes of Israel were still scattered abroad. James himself was heir to a promise spoken by God himself to his forefather David and confirmed in Jeremiah 33 where God specified that as long as there was day and night, his special covenant with the descendants of David would not be broken.

Paul tells us that those of us who are grafted in to Israel through faith in Jesus become heirs of the promises given to Abraham. We don't replace the Israelites as heirs because God is always faithful to his promises and covenants.

[Ron Amnsn]

In the book of Revelation, chapters 7 and 14, the 144,000 are said to be members of particular tribes of Israel. These are not described as being a member of the twelve tribes. In other words, they are members of one of the tribes, not of all of them.

If a person is a member of one of the tribes, are they not a member of the twelve tribes? If you are a citizen of one of the states in the US, are you not also a citizen of the "united" states?

Let's to back to the first use of the phrase "twelve tribes of Israel" in the Scriptures. In Genesis 49 Jacob (aka Israel) blessed each of his twelve sons as individuals. Then immediately afterwards it says "All these are the twelve tribes of Israel." If we let the Scripture interpret Scripture we won't be confused by speculative interpretations. If Genesis says that the "twelve tribes of Israel" refer specifically to the descendants of Jacob, then why would James use a different meaning?

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

In the book of Revelation, chapters 7 and 14, the 144,000 are said to be members of particular tribes of Israel. These are not described as being a member of the twelve tribes. In other words, they are members of one of the tribes, not of all of them.

If a person is a member of one of the tribes, are they not a member of the twelve tribes? If you are a citizen of one of the states in the US, are you not also a citizen of the "united" states?

Let's to back to the first use of the phrase "twelve tribes of Israel" in the Scriptures. In Genesis 49 Jacob (aka Israel) blessed each of his twelve sons as individuals. Then immediately afterwards it says "All these are the twelve tribes of Israel." If we let the Scripture interpret Scripture we won't be confused by speculative interpretations. If Genesis says that the "twelve tribes of Israel" refer specifically to the descendants of Jacob, then why would James use a different meaning?

You've brought up some excellent points, and I'm glad we can discuss these interesting, important things. I'm enjoying learning your viewpoint about them.

Gen. 49 was spoken at a time when all of the twelve tribes still existed as separate and distinct entities, or tribes. So they were literally the twelve tribes at that time.

If Rev. 7 is naming the literal 12 tribes of Israel, why does it differ from the list of the literal "twelve tribes of Israel" given in Gen. 49? See below for further details on this point.

When we go to Rev. 7, it names each tribe and says that of each distinct tribe, there are twelve thousand sealed. It does not say that there are 44,000 [generic] Israelites sealed, but "of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand" are sealed, etc. In other words, it is very clear that 12,000 individual members from each tribe are sealed. This is, if we take the meaning in its literal sense. Do you agree with this?

If Rev. 7 is referring to the 12 literal tribes of Israel,

1) Of what significance is it that Ephraim and Dan are left out, when they are listed in the "twelve tribes" in Gen. 49?

2) Why do you think the listing of the tribes is different in Rev. 7 from any other listing of the tribes in the Bible? For instance, the list includes Levi, a tribe that is usually left out because they were not given land. Also, Reuben, the firstborn, is listed as second, while Judah, the fourth offspring, is listed as the first.

Consider the order in which Rev. 7 lists them, and their corresponding Hebrew meanings as found in Scripture:

1. Judah mean "I will praise the Lord"

2) Reuben means He has looked on me"

3) Gad means "Given good fortune"

4) Asher means "Happy am I"

5) Naphtali means "My wrestling"

6. Manasseh means "Making me to forget"

7. Simeon means "God hears me"

8. Levi means "Joined to me"

9. Issachar means "Purchased me"

10. Zebulun means "Dwelling"

11. Joseph means "Will add to me"

12. Benjamin means "Son of His right hand"

Doug Batchelor, an SDA Jew, has lined up these meanings of the names according to the way they appear as listed in Revelation. It forms a very remarkable statement declaring how God saves the church as His bride!

"I will praise the Lord for he has looked on me and granted good fortune. I am happy because of my wrestling. God is making me to forget. God hears me and is joined to me. He has purchased me a dwelling and will add to me, the Son of His right hand."

His comment about the above: "These names presented in this order describe a brief story summarizing the church's struggle, redemption, victory, and ultimate marriage to the Lamb. It seems evident that this is a special message of encouragement for those who are in the Church, believers in Christ, and not necessarily just Jews." (Who Will Sing the Song? Understanding the 144,000, Doug Batchelor, Published by Amazing Facts, pp. 14, 15.)

Do you see any "light" in this understanding of Rev. 7?

Regards, "John 3:17"

[John317]

One of God's promises to Jacob was, "Your descendants will also be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south; and in you and in your descendants shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Gen 28:14 NASB) I believe that God has kept that promise to Jacob even though his descendants were disobedient to God.

Yes, his promise to Abraham was unconditional. In fact, his promise to Abraham was the same as the New Covenant, which had its beginning before the Fall and is stated clearly in Gen. 3: 15. It was based on faith, not on works. It does not depend on man's promises or on man's works of law at all. The Old Covenant that came later was not opposed to the promises God gave to Abraham. Neither was it against the promises God gave to Christ, who is Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:16, 19).

So I agree with you that God has kept his promise to Jacob. However, that promise has not yet been fulfilled completely, and will not be completely fulfilled, until Christ recreates the world, as described in Rev. 21 and 22. At that time the meek [gentle, mild, patient, humble-minded, long-suffering] will inherit the earth, and the pure [clean in heart, utterly sincere] in heart will see God.

Quote:

Although we don't know where all the descendants of Jacob are, God knows where they are. If you do the math, you'll find that the odds are high that you too are a direct descendant of Jacob. You had millions of ancestors. If just one of those individuals had any Israelite blood in them, then you too are descended from one of the tribes of Jacob.

But would that qualify me as a member of one of the tribes of the twelve tribes of Israel? Let's say I am a descendant of a Jew who lived 2,700 years ago. Is everyone who is descended from that Jew actually a member of his tribe? Do you believe this is what Rev. 7 literally has reference to? According to that definition, almost anyone may qualify as a Jew, but is it accurate to say they are a member of a particular tribe? It is more likely they are a members of multiple tribes, isn't it? And if that is the case, how are they a fulfillment of the prophecy if we take the prophecy to be referring to literal tribes, each of which only 12,000 are sealed?

Are Samaritans literal, true members of physical Israel? The Jews of Jesus' day detested this group and rejected them. Why? Because they were not pure Israelites in blood or religion.

Quote:

As a Jew of royal descent, of the line of David, James was very aware that the kingdom of Israel had not yet been restored, and that tribes of Israel were still scattered abroad. James himself was heir to a promise spoken by God himself to his forefather David and confirmed in Jeremiah 33 where God specified that as long as there was day and night, his special covenant with the descendants of David would not be broken.

Paul tells us that those of us who are grafted in to Israel through faith in Jesus become heirs of the promises given to Abraham. We don't replace the Israelites as heirs because God is always faithful to his promises and covenants.

What, then, do you understand the Holy Spirit to have meant when He inspired Paul to write: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit" (Romans 2: 28, 29. "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3: 29)

The Lord told the ancient Israelites, "And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19: 6). Notice in the New Testament, peter applies that title to spiritual Israel or the Church: "But you [Christians] are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people" (1 Peter 2: 9).

Do you believe that the Bible teaches that the Old Covenant still exists and is binding or is still in effect? What about Daniel 9: 24-27; Hebrews 8: 6, 7, 13; and 2 Cor. 3: 7-13? That is, didn't the Old, "obsolete" "faulty," Covenant "vanish away," to be replaced by the "better" Covenant-- the New one-- that is based on better promises? How do you understand these things?

Regards,

"John 3: 17"