Again and again history of Christ's withdrawal from "Judea" repeated!

[skyblue888]

In the first five verses of Romans 9, as we previously read, Paul testified first of all to his great love for the Jewish people, then he stated his belief in the Divine call to the Jews and of their Divinely appointed mission to the world.

Yet despite this, he stood in complete separation from that organization. The response of the then religious leaders was to quote from the Old Testament which told of the eternal perpetuity of the Jewish race, and then they charged Paul with making the Word of God of none effect.

But now God through the pen of Paul replies by stating that the Word of God has not been made of no effect by the actions of God's servant, but rather that the Word has been misunderstood and misapplied. Note the words of God:

"Not as though the Word of God had taken no effect for they are not all Israel which are of Israel. Neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but, in Isaac shall Thy seed be called. That is they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." verses 6-8.

Now there is the answer!

The whole argument of the religious leaders is based on the assumption that because they can point back to the fact that they began as the people of God, and that they are the direct physical descendants from that people, possessing great religious prosperity and power, having a great zeal for religion and for God, that they must be the church of God and that all the promised blessings are for none other than them.

This is a very natural and common assumption for human beings to make, but Paul shows that it is a very wrong assumption indeed. He shows that they must rest their case on a very different premise from that. He shows that physical descent counts for nothing, and that being the physical sons of Abraham does not necessarily make them the children of Abraham at all. "The children of the flesh," he says, "these are not the children of God."

As evidence of this he points them to a case they could not, and would not dare to deny, the case of Isaac and Ishmael. From the physical point of view Ishmael was just as much the son of Abraham as ever Isaac was. If either of them could claim any precedence then it was Ishmael, for he was the first born of the two, and that counted with great weight in the days of Abraham. But Ishmael never did become entrusted with the sacred promises to Israel, and it was not through his line that the promised Saviour came to the world. It is true that in his old age he did repent of his wayward life and became a recipient of the blessing of God through Abraham, but his descendants never followed in the steps of the father.

But every one of his children was a physical son of Abraham as truly as was Caiphas or Annas or any other of the priests and rulers of Israel. But ask any one of those Pharisees or rulers if the children of Abraham through Ishmael were the children of God, and the church of God, and you would have received a most emphatic denial that they ever were. Then the natural question must follow:

"What is it then that makes you the children of God and they not, when both have equal claim to being the physical children of Abraham?"

sky

[skyblue888]

Well, some might seek to save the situation by asserting that inasmuch as Ishmael had an Egyptian for a mother, the Lord could not accept him as the child of promise. It was through Sarah that the seed was to come and therefore, Isaac and not Ishmael, had to be the child of promise while Ishmael had to be rejected of God.

But Paul seems to have anticipated this argument for he then points to the case of Jacob and Esau. Here were two children who had not only the same father and mother, but the same conception and birth. They were twins. Furthermore, they both were the children of Abraham through Isaac. But once again the religious leaders would deny that the Lord was with Esau, the one son of Isaac, while they recognized that all the promises and blessings came down through the other son of the same father and by the same birth, Jacob.

Again the question must be raised: "What is it then that gives you, as the children of Abraham and of Isaac, the right to call yourselves the children of God and the church of God when you recognize that the Edomites, the children of Esau, the children of Abraham and of Isaac, cannot make such a claim, but are the children of the evil one and are not the church of God in any sense of the word at all?"

It is difficult to know just how the Pharisee would answer that question now, for it is evident that something other than physical connection with Abraham was needful to establish one's claim to be the church of God. What was that something else?

[skyblue888]

Before the answer is given let us look at two more cases.

They are the cases of Rahab the harlot of Jericho, and Ruth the Moabitess.

Neither Rahab nor Ruth could claim the least physical descent from Abraham. In fact they came from races which greatly despised and hated the Israelites who in turn held them in poor esteem, yet they were taken into the family of Israel and actually became mothers in the direct line of the Saviour of the world. Thus in the highest and most complete sense were they the children of Abraham for the promise was that through Abraham, in the birth of Christ, would all families of the earth be blessed. They were not simply integrated into the commonwealth of Israel as Gentile believers, but as Israelites, and God so fully recognized them as such as to have the holy seed brought on down through them.

By such plain declarations and illustrations would the God of Heaven teach us that the children of the flesh are not the Children of God. Physical descent counts for nothing, else the children of Ishmael and of Esau would have as much claim to be the Children of God and of Israel as ever Paul or the Apostles, while on the other hand Rahab and Ruth would be without hope.

What then did Ruth and Rahab have that the Ishmaelites and Edomites never had? The answer is very simple. They had a living, spiritual connection with the God of Heaven. It becomes very evident then, that the only children the Lord recognizes as being children of Abraham and of Israel, are those who have a living experience in righteousness, those who were faithful to the truth of God and to the principles of that truth. None other could claim sonship with Abraham no matter what their position or power in the world might be.

In every age God has such a people. Sometimes they are extremely obscure and small in number, but the Lord has them. The world may at the time be filled with the grand organizations of the long established churches, proudly claiming to be the true church as did the Jews and the Catholics. But God does not walk with these bodies unless they are faithful and true to Him and the principles of His righteousness.

Not one of the promises are for them, nor were they ever intended for anybody who did not walk with God. True, they can say that their fathers had the promises and enjoyed the promises, but that was only because the fathers were faithful to the truth of God and to the God of truth. It must be learned that the faithfulness of the fathers does not automatically guarantee that the promises will pass on to the children. The faithful son of Abraham inherited the promises, while the unfaithful one did not. The faithful son of Isaac inherited the promises while his unfaithful son did not.

Therefore, before the Jews in the days of Paul ever dared to claim the promises of Isaiah and of Jeremiah as we have previously quoted, they should first have determined by an examination of their faithfulness, if they were indeed the children of Abraham, if they were "Israel," if they were "Jerusalem."

sky

[skyblue888]

So it is not enough to be able to point to the Spirit of Prophecy and the Bible on our shelves and in our book shops.

Remember that the Jews in the days of Christ could do that, for the Old Testament was the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy to them. But that did not make them the church of God nor did it save them.

It is not enough to be able to point back to the accomplishments and the evident blessings of the Lord on the work of the Advent fathers as proof that today their children are the church of God.

Remember that the Jews could do all that too.

It is not enough to be able to point to the prophetic proof that the Adventist church rose at the right time with the right message for the hour.

Remember that the Jews could do that too.

It is not enough to show that the movement was directed by God through a prophet.

Remember that the Jews could claim that too.

It is not enough to have grown large and prosperous, to claim all this as the result of God's blessings, and therefore proof that the Lord is still with us.

Remember that the Jews could do that too and that there is no church that is larger, more prosperous or powerful than the Papal church today.

All these things can be claimed by those who are the children of the flesh. They have them by virtue of the their physical inheritance from their fathers. But, "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God." Rom.9:8.

One can have all the above and still not be the child of God and a part of the Church of God. It is spiritual connection and faithfulness to the truth of God which is the one true test of the true church of God. Will we ever learn this lesson, and make this the measure by which to determine where the church is and thus where the promises are?

That is the question. That is the whole point of the argument God gave to Paul in answer to the religous leaders of his day.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

In the first five verses of Romans 9, as we previously read, Paul testified first of all to his great love for the Jewish people, then he stated his belief in the Divine call to the Jews and of their Divinely appointed mission to the world.

Yet despite this, he stood in complete separation from that organization.

Sky, I think I agree with your major point -- that the church shouldn't assume that it can retain God's blessing no matter what it does.

But your statements about the Jews of Paul's day miss the mark. First off, they weren't an organization nor a church. There were about a dozen different sects of Judaism coexisting within Israel. The most well known sects were the Pharisees and the Saducees. Others included the Essenes, Herodians, and Zealots. The followers of Jesus were also a sect within Judaism called "the Way" or the Nazarenes.

[skyblue888]

In the first five verses of Romans 9, as we previously read, Paul testified first of all to his great love for the Jewish people, then he stated his belief in the Divine call to the Jews and of their Divinely appointed mission to the world.

Yet despite this, he stood in complete separation from that organization.

sky

____________________________________

Sky, I think I agree with your major point -- that the church shouldn't assume that it can retain God's blessing no matter what it does.

But your statements about the Jews of Paul's day miss the mark. First off, they weren't an organization nor a church. There were about a dozen different sects of Judaism coexisting within Israel. The most well known sects were the Pharisees and the Saducees. Others included the Essenes, Herodians, and Zealots. The followers of Jesus were also a sect within Judaism called "the Way" or the Nazarenes.

Ron

_______________________________

Ron, glad you agree with my major point. However, are you saying that there was no such thing as the "Jewish Church"? Ever heard of the Mosaic Order? Interestingly enough, more than one hundred years ago articles from SDA Officials appeared in the Review and Herald boasting that the SDA Church was patterned after the Mosaic Order to the exclusion of the Evangelical Order! Even the Early Church rejected the Christian Order and adopted the Mosaic Order in the second century and we know what this apostasy led to: the papacy. The Testimonies have been warning us that we were following in the track of Rome!

So what if there were different groups within the Jewish Church? There is nothing new under the son. There are many different groups within Adventism today and yes there is also a "little church" within the "mother church" composed of the faithful few and through whom the Lord will finish His work and cut it short in righteousness.

sky

[skyblue888]

how did this thread get to be on top of the list? the last post was Jan.11... two weeks ago and nobody posted since then!!! and it just appeared on top of the list before I posted this!!!

This must be a glitch... now three of today's threads are below four of last week's threads which have not had new posts since.

sky