Judaizers and SDAizers

[Ron Amnsn]

pk, i didn't think it was necessary to explain what a "Judaizer" was.

So far on this thread we seem to have several different definitions of Judaizer. And since we don't have a firm definition, it allows people to use different definitions in different situations without becoming aware that their definitions are used inconsistently. And because they switch back and forth between definitions they won't see that their usage of Judaizer disagrees with Scripture.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

pk, i didn't think it was necessary to explain what a "Judaizer" was.

So far on this thread we seem to have several different definitions of Judaizer. And since we don't have a firm definition, it allows people to use different definitions in different situations without becoming aware that their definitions are used inconsistently. And because they switch back and forth between definitions they won't see that their usage of Judaizer disagrees with Scripture.

So,Ron, Since you asked the original qwestchun how bout giving the definition that you want the discussion to center around so we're all on the same page?

[Ron Amnsn]

pk, i didn't think it was necessary to explain what a "Judaizer" was. We usually turn to Acts 15 to find out who the "Judaizers" were.

"And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1.

[Ron Amnsn]

In the New Covenant every type meets with its antitype. For example, it is no longer necessary to be circumcised in the flesh, for "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." Col.2:11.

[doug yowell]

[converts. The Law of Moses also stipulates that Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover sacrifice must first be circumcised. Moses didn't teach that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved.

If Paul's opponents wanted scriptural authority to circumcise adult Gentiles, then they should appeal to the Covenant with Abraham, rather than the "custom of Moses". Abraham was required to circumcise all the males of his household, none of whom were Israelites.

1) Technically,the eating of the Passover was an indication that one was "saved".Therefore, teaching circumcision was directly related to salvation though not a requirement to be saved just like circumcision had always been. 2)Abraham was not an Israelite either.

[doug yowell]

Some of your statements here are kinda general and broad and can be taken is several different ways.You keep referring to the Law of Moses. Are you including the ceremonial and sacrificial aspects of the Law (the feasts, the offerings, the cleansings,ect...)in that definition? By referring to Israelites are you including both the believing and the unbelieving (birthed and proselytized)Jews? So far I believe what you've posted but I'm a little concerned by what you haven't posted.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

Doug, I appreciate your comments. Yes, there are passages in the New Testament that teach the realities about Jesus that are represented by the Levitical worship system instituted by God. But when taken in context, there isn't anything in those NT passages that tells people to actually stop obeying the commands that God gave in the Old Testament. When God want's his people to stop obeying certain instructions, He is capable of saying so in as clear a manner as when He originally gave the the instructions.

I disagree with this assumption.

[skyblue888]

Nowhere in Scripture does it speak of a "Spiritual Israel" that is separate from the physical descendants of Jacob.

Ron

_______________________________________

Wow Ron, I will dare say that if we were searching for a definition of what it means to be a "Judaizer," you could not have provided us with a better one!

You claim that nowhere in Scripture does it speak of a "spiritual Israel" that is separate from the physical descendants of Jacob!

Gal.3:29 says: "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." In verse 28 we read, "There is neither Jew nor Greek," "for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

So these passages are crystal clear. They teach that there is such a thing as a "spiritual Israel," for all who do not have any physical connection whatsoever with Abraham according to the flesh may become Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise if they are Christ's.

In fact those who have or have had a physical connection with Abraham but are not Christ's, cannot be Abraham's seed and therefore are not heirs according to the promise.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

You claim that nowhere in Scripture does it speak of a "spiritual Israel" that is separate from the physical descendants of Jacob!

Gal.3:29 says: "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." In verse 28 we read, "There is neither Jew nor Greek," "for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

So these passages are crystal clear. They teach that there is such a thing as a "spiritual Israel," for all who do not have any physical connection whatsoever with Abraham according to the flesh may become Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise if they are Christ's.

[Ron Amnsn]

Wow Ron, I will dare say that if we were searching for a definition of what it means to be a "Judaizer," you could not have provided us with a better one!

When the term "Judaizer" is only a vague notion without a firm definition it can be used to paint any who value more of God's word than you do. Maybe it would be more responsible to actually figure out how the term "Judaizer" is used in Scripture, and then use it accordingly.

[skyblue888]

Ron, it would seem that we are going in circles. I sense that you are clinging to the literal physical descent. Jesus said to the Jews, "The flesh profits nothing." John 6:63. Physical descent with Abraham profits nothing. It is not the human nature of Christ that we inherit through the merits of His infinite sacrifice but His divine nature. 2 Peter 1:4. This is what makes us heirs according to the promise, the promise that God made to Christ that He would receive all who would come to Him trusting wholly in the merits of His sacrifice for their acceptance with God and for the gift of the Holy Spirit to enable them to live rihgteous lives.

Have you taken the time to read the thread titled Again and Again History of Christ's withdrawal from "Judea' repeated, especially the last posts?

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, it would seem that we are going in circles. I sense that you are clinging to the literal physical descent.

[doug yowell]

Sky, I think maybe you are reading these verses with the assumption that the "church" is a separate entity that has replaced the physical descendants of Jacob.

It is very true that those who belong to Messiah become Abraham's seed. Jesus is a physical descendant of Abraham through Jacob. Abraham's seed is not a new and separate entity from Abraham's physical descendants through Jacob.

Scripture teaches that Gentile believers are grafted into the olive tree of Israel. We know the olive tree is Israel or the patriarchs because Paul says that the natural Jewish branches that are cut off can be grafted back in to their own olive tree (Romans 11:24) Gentile believers become part of the commonwealth of Israel alongside the physical descendants of Abraham through Jacob, not separate from them.

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

In fact those who have or have had a physical connection with Abraham but are not Christ's, cannot be Abraham's seed and therefore are not heirs according to the promise.

Which promise is your "heirs according to the promise" passage talking about? I suspect it's the same promise Paul gives in Romans 9:8-9 "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON." The physical descendants of Jacob are descended from Isaac, who was the actual son mentioned in that promise.

What in the world are you talking about,RoN? "They are not all Israel that are of Israel..." Can you be a physical descendant of Abraham and yet not a spiritual descendant of Abraham? Gentiles were grafted into Israel's tree while Israelites were grafted out of Israel's tree.Spiritual Israel has always been a separate entity in God's eyes. God is no respecter of persons. And Jesus commented to the Israelites of Israelites "If you were Abraham's children you would do the works of Abraham."

[skyblue888]

And Jesus commented to the Israelites of Israelites "If you were Abraham's children you would do the works of Abraham."

doug

_________________________________________________________________

This should settle it forever that physical descent with Abraham is far from being a guarantee that one is an heir of salvation. On the contrary. Jesus said, "The sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt.8:12.

And this passage of Scripture applies to us as well, SDAs, because we are Modern Israel. Why, because we have been exalted to heaven in point of privilege, but we have not lived according to the light given.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

What in the world are you talking about,RoN? "They are not all Israel that are of Israel..." Can you be a physical descendant of Abraham and yet not a spiritual descendant of Abraham? Gentiles were grafted into Israel's tree while Israelites were grafted out of Israel's tree.Spiritual Israel has always been a separate entity in God's eyes. God is no respecter of persons. And Jesus commented to the Israelites of Israelites "If you were Abraham's children you would do the works of Abraham."

Yes, of course some of the physical descendants of Abraham and Jacob have been cut off from the covenants. The covenants actually define how that happens. It happens on a person by person basis. That's different than what Replacement Theology has taught. Replacement Theology taught that God rejected all the physical descendants of Abraham, unless they renounced the religion God gave to their forefathers and separated from the Jews to join the church. But that's not what the Bible teaches.

There has never been a separate entity called "spiritual Israel". The Scriptures speak of a "remnant" of Israel who are faithful to God. The remnant is what remains of the original, not something separate. The covenants have always included Gentiles who wanted to join with Israel to serve Israel's God.

The Law of Moses prohibits the "respect of persons" in regard to judgments, so it is no surprise that "God is no respecter of persons" (Romans 2:11) That means that small or great persons should be treated equally in judgment. It doesn't mean that God has reneged on his covenant and promises to Abraham, Israel, and their physical descendants. That is evident from the preceding verses where Paul says, "to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile", and throughout Romans 9-11 where Paul teaches about this very topic.

When Jesus said, "If you were Abraham's children you would do the works of Abraham," he was talking to a group of Jewish people, some of whom were plotting to kill him. He was not passing judgment against the whole nation of Israel.

Now, if the church is "spiritual Israel", shouldn't they be doing the things God taught Israel to do? If they are followers of Jesus, shouldn't they be living according to the same guidelines that Jesus lived by? Christianity is the only religion I know of that now rejects (as "Judaizers") those who seek to live as the founders of the religion lived. That's really rather odd.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ok, let's look at some of the definitions of Judaizer, starting with the most commonly used working definition.

In common usage of the word Judaizer today, the person making the accusation of "Judaizer" serves as the benchmark of proper behavior and a Judaizer would be anyone who teaches or does anything from the Old Testament or from Jewish tradition or culture that is beyond what the benchmark person would do. This makes the term "Judaizer" conveniently variable and arbitrary. This is not how Judaizer is used in Scripture.

As there is time, I will post other definitions of Judaizer that we can look at. You can post definitions as well. We will compare each definition with Scripture to see which definition is valid.

[skyblue888]

Ron, a "Judaizer" is someone who teaches that circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial system, and the ceremonial feasts of Old Testament era are still to be observed as the benchmarks of God's chosen people.

Judging by your posts, you fit this true difinition of a "Judaizer," to a "t".

Concerning the Jewish people, we read:

"The Jewish people cherished the idea that they were the favorites of Heaven, and that they were always to be exalted as the church of God. They were the children of Abraham, they declared, and so firm did the foundation of their prosperity seem to them that they defied earth and heaven to dispossess them of their rights. But by lives of unfaithfulness they were preparing for the condemnation of Heaven, and for separation from God... Because they failed of fulfilling God's purpose, the children of Israel were set aside, and God's call was extended to other peoples. If these too prove unfaithful, will they not in like manner be rejected?" Christ's Object Lessons, pp.294,304.

This is the teaching of the Word of God and anyone who teaches that the Jews in the Middle East, with their Jerusalem of old, constitute the chosen people of God today, is, like many of the Evangelicals, in a fog of bewilderment.

This is the pure teaching of the Word of God.

Ron, only by twisting the Scriptures can we arrive at the conclusions that you have arrived to. Literal Israel is no longer the chosen people of God. In order to become the seed of Abraham, they must individually be grafted to the spiritual tree of Israel. They must individually be joined to Jesus Christ by hanging their helpless souls upon His all-sufficient merits.

Since A.D.34 the Jewish people, as a nation, have ceased to be the "chosen nation."

Only those who are Christ's by faith are the "chosen nation" as taught in 1 Peter 2:

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light, who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy." 1 Peter 2:7-9.

In order to become members of that body of people, spiritual Israel, the Jews must individually become a new creature in Christ Jesus.

sky

Even in Old Testament times it was not enough to be a physical descendant of Abraham to be the seed of Abraham. Through the sacrificial system, one had to learn to trust in the merits of a Saviour to come in order to be clothed with the righteousness of God which alone could make one a true descendant of Abraham.

[skyblue888]

Ron wrote:

When Paul was talking about the Jews who did not believe in Jesus he said, "my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises." (Rom 9:3-4) According to Paul the covenants and promises still belonged to the physical Israelites. You seem to be saying something quite different.

________________________

Yes but notice how in verse 6 the same apostle Paul was accused by the same Jewish people of making the Word of God of no effect because he was now saying that in order to be the children of God it was not enough to be a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh. Verses 7,8.

In A.D.34. there arose a great persecution against the followers of Christ (Acts 8:1) followed by the stoning of Stephen. It was then that the Jewish people sealed their rejection of God's mercy. As a people, they were set aside then. It was at that time that the apostles and their converts officially became the "chosen people" of God. But in the second century there was apostasy among them which later led to the rise of the beast, the papal power. During that time the "chosen people" of God were persecuted and put to death. This lasted for almost theirteen centuries.

Then came the rise of the Advent movement according to the prophecy of Daniel 8:14. But again the church has fallen into apostasy. But there remains one final call for revival and reformation. If that last call is rejected, there will be another persecution and the bearers of the last message of mercy to the church will have no choice but to go to the world and their message will swell into the loud cry and when the mission of the Gospel is completed, the judgment (of the living) will accomplish the final separation between the good and the bad, between the wheat and the tares, between the wise and the foolish and their destiny will be forever fixed.

During the loud cry indivivual Jews, along with individuals from all the other nations, will receive the Gospel invitation.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, a "Judaizer" is someone who teaches that circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial system, and the ceremonial feasts of Old Testament era are still to be observed as the benchmarks of God's chosen people.

Judging by your posts, you fit this true definition of a "Judaizer," to a "t".

If you would say what you believe, and let me say what I believe, this discussion will be more profitable. Anyone can create a "straw man" to refute, but to what avail?

Let's take a look at your definition of Judaizer.

From which of the two biblical references to "Judaize" and "Judaizer" do you derive your definition, Esther 8:17 or Galatians 2:14?

Here is what we get if we take your definition and place it's meaning into Esther 8:17:

"And many among the peoples of the land accepted that circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial system, and the ceremonial feasts of Old Testament era are still to be observed as the benchmarks of God's chosen people for the dread of the Jews had fallen on them." That seems to distort the meaning of the verse in a substantial way.

When we insert your definition into Galatians 2:14 we get:

"If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to accept that circumcision of the flesh, the sacrificial system, and the ceremonial feasts of Old Testament era are still to be observed as the benchmarks of God's chosen people?"

That doesn't seem to fully match the context of the situation. Were these really the issues at the root of Paul's public rebuke of Peter's hypocrisy?

It's a little hard to tell what you mean by the phrase "as the benchmarks of God's chosen people" since that terminology doesn't appear in Scripture. Your phrase modifies the verb phrase "are to be observed" in a way that may indicate the motivation or reason for the action of observing. Does it mean in order to be saved, or does it mean in order to be obedient, or does it mean in order to prove or determine who the chosen people are? Or does it mean something else? If you intend that phrase to mean "in order to be saved", would a person still be a Judaizer if the action of observing was done for a different reason?

When you mention circumcision, are you talking about adult circumcision of Gentile converts, or are you talking about the circumcision of 8-day old baby boys? Which New Testament passages would you use to show that 8-day old baby boys should no longer be circumcised? All of Paul's comments against circumcision are in reference to adult circumcision.

According to your definition, when Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16), Paul engaged in an activity that had the appearance of Judaizing. And when Paul taught people to do as they had seen him do (Phil 4:9, etc) the result would likely result in Judaizing.

According to your definition, God himself may have been a Judaizer when he told Abraham that 8-day old baby boys should be circumcised throughout the generations of his descendants, rather than only until Messiah showed up. And Jesus was probably a Judaizer when he told people, "If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." (John 8:39) One of the works of Abraham was to circumcise all the males of his household.

According to your definition, when Paul took part in the purification rituals and prepared to go up to the Temple to offer animal sacrifices (Acts 21), Paul gave us an example that had the appearance of Judaizing, and those who followed Paul's example would likely be Judaizing.

Your definition mentions "ceremonial feasts" a term that doesn't occur in Scripture. When God talks about His feasts in Lev. 23 He calls them "My feasts". If you are talking about God's feasts, then according to your definition, when Paul told the Corinthians, "Therefore let us keep the feast" because Jesus is our Passover (1 Cor 5:8), Paul would appear to be a Judaizer. Paul also may have been Judaizing when he told people "I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem" (Acts 18:21 KJV) and may have been Judaizing by example when he went up to Jerusalem to worship at the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) in Acts 21.

According to your definition, God himself may have been a Judaizer when he told the Israelites that they should observe His feasts throughout their generations, rather than telling them to observe His feasts only until Messiah showed up.

If your definition of Judaizer was the definition used by Paul in his teaching, how would the Bereans have been able to confirm that definition by searching the Old Testament Scriptures to see if what Paul taught was true?

If your definition of Judaizer is correct, then the wise men from the east and all other Jews and Israelites dispersed among the nations who had a heart connection to God, would (after Calvary) suddenly be doing things that could be considered Judaizing simply by continuing to teach from Gods word and circumcising their servants who wanted to celebrate Passover. That seems like it would be a dirty trick for God to play on those people who remained faithful to Him -- changing the rules so that something that was formerly good to do (something God had told them to do) suddenly became questionable or evil. If God is a God who changes the rules like that without telling people, how do you know God hasn't already changed the rules of the New Covenant so that baptizing, marrying, and "being fruitful and multiplying" are now no longer authorized by God?

[skyblue888]

Ron, I am sorry but I could not make much sense of your last post. Look, it is very simple. The theory that would have us believe that the Jews, as a people, are still the "Israel" of God is blasted away by this simple passage of Scripture:

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light, who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy." 1 Peter 2:7-9.

Here Peter is addressing those (Jews or Gentiles) who have become one with Christ.

As a nation the Jews have rejected Christ. As a people they were set aside.

"The message of salvation is communicated to men through human agencies. But the Jews had sought to make a monopoly of the truth which is eternal life. They had hoarded the living manna, and it had turned to corruption. The religion which they tried to shut up to themselves became an offense. They robbed God of His glory, and defrauded the world by a counterfeit of the gospel. They had refused to surrender themselves to God for the salvation of the world, and they became agents of Satan for its destruction.

The people whom God had called to be the pillar and ground of the truth had become representatives of Satan. They were doing the work that he desired them to do, taking a course to misrepresent the character of God, and cause the world to look upon Him as a tyrant. The very priests who ministered in the temple had lost sight of the significance of the service they performed. They had ceased to look beyond the symbol to the thing signified. In presenting the sacrificial offerings they were as actors in a play. The ordinances which God Himself had appointed were made the means of blinding the mind and hardening the heart. God could do no more for man through these channels. The whole system must be swept away." The Desire of Ages, p.36.

"A nation's sin and a nation's ruin were due to the religious leaders." Desire of Ages, p.738

That says it all.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

Concerning the Jewish people, we read:

"The Jewish people cherished the idea that they were the favorites of Heaven, and that they were always to be exalted as the church of God. They were the children of Abraham, they declared, and so firm did the foundation of their prosperity seem to them that they defied earth and heaven to dispossess them of their rights. But by lives of unfaithfulness they were preparing for the condemnation of Heaven, and for separation from God... Because they failed of fulfilling God's purpose, the children of Israel were set aside, and God's call was extended to other peoples. If these too prove unfaithful, will they not in like manner be rejected?" Christ's Object Lessons, pp.294,304.

This is the teaching of the Word of God and anyone who teaches that the Jews in the Middle East, with their Jerusalem of old, constitute the chosen people of God today, is, like many of the Evangelicals, in a fog of bewilderment.

This is the pure teaching of the Word of God.

If that was the teaching of the Word of God, it would say that in Scripture, but Scripture doesn't actually say what you are saying. That's why you need to quote from writers outside Scripture to try to prop up what you are saying.

Even Ellen White said that her own writings need to be tested by Scripture. She knew that she had been affected by the teachings of men that she had learned while growing up. So let's test what she wrote.

Speaking about the physical Israelites, Paul said emphatically, "I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means!" (Rom 11:1) Paul knew the Scriptures and what Paul said here is in agreement with God's Word regarding Israel.

Christianity inherited a strong anti-Israel and anti-Old-Testament bias from early church leaders like Constantine the Great and various theologians who hated Jews. That bias is still strong within Christian theology.

The Protestant Reformation began the task of discarding the non-scriptural baggage that was handed down by the Roman church. But that task wasn't finished when Luther died, and it wasn't finished when Ellen White died.

We still have the task of holding all of our doctrines and traditions up to the light of Scripture to test whether they are merely the traditions of men.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, only by twisting the Scriptures can we arrive at the conclusions that you have arrived to. Literal Israel is no longer the chosen people of God. In order to become the seed of Abraham, they must individually be grafted to the spiritual tree of Israel. They must individually be joined to Jesus Christ by hanging their helpless souls upon His all-sufficient merits.

Since A.D.34 the Jewish people, as a nation, have ceased to be the "chosen nation."

Have you seen what the LORD spoke regarding people who were saying the same thing that you are saying about Israel?

"The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 'Have you not observed that these people are saying, 'The LORD has rejected the two clans that he chose'? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight.'" (Jer 33:23-24)

And in the next verses God himself refuted what you are teaching:

"Thus says the LORD, 'If My covenant for day and night stand not, and the fixed patterns of heaven and earth I have not established, then I would reject the descendants of Jacob and David My servant, not taking from his descendants rulers over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But I will restore their fortunes and will have mercy on them." (Jer 33:25-26) God's covenant for day and night was established with Noah and his descendants:

"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease." (Genesis 8:22)

Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the apostle Paul testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets." (Acts 24:14) So we know that Paul believed what Jeremiah wrote about God not rejecting the descendants of Jacob as the people that he chose, as long as day and night continue.

The teaching about the year AD 34 is not found in Scripture.

It was long after AD 34 that Paul wrote in the present tense about what still belongs to the unbelieving descendants of Jacob, "my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises," (Rom 9:3-4)

It was after AD 34 that John wrote his gospel and said that "Jesus died for the nation" of Israel. (John 11:51)

It was after AD 34 that the author of Acts wrote about the final question asked of Jesus by his disciples, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" (Act 1:6) If what you say about Israel was true, that would have been an excellent time for Jesus to explain to the disciples that what Jeremiah prophesied about the restoration of Israel would not happen. But the author of Acts did not include any explanatory note for Theopholus indicating that there was anything wrong with the disciples question, nor was their any indication that since AD 34 there was no longer any hope that the kingdom would be restored to Israel. Neither was there any indication in Jesus' answer that the kingdom would not be restored to Israel. (Acts 1:7-8)

It was after AD 34 that Paul preached in the Jewish synagogue at Pisidian Antioch that "God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus" (Acts 13:23) Paul thus indicated that Israel was still at that time considered by Paul to be the nation to whom belonged the promise of the Messiah. At the beginning of that sermon Paul confirmed that God chose the people of Israel (verse 17). Also in that sermon Paul confirmed that the Jewish people at the synagogue were still "Sons of Abraham's family" even though they had not yet believed on Jesus. (verse 26) Paul didn't say anything in that sermon about God revoking his choosing from the nation of Israel; not in AD 34 nor at any other time.

Throughout the whole book of Acts the word Israel continues to be used to talk of the physical descendants of Jacob, and there is no indication that they had been rejected at AD 34.

It is apparent that the New Testament authors did not believe as you do about AD 34. If AD 34 was a significant date in the overall scheme of how God dealt with the Israelites, it might have been mentioned somewhere in Scripture.

[skyblue888]

Of course God has not rejected His people. God has always had a people. But the Jews are not His people any more than the Muslims or the Buddhists or the Catholics are His people. God's professed people today are Seventh-day Aventists eventhough we are repeating the history of Ancient Israel.

Who are you exactly, a "Zionist" from the Evangelicals?

sky

There may be sincere Christians in these bodies but they will be called out before the mission of the Gospel is completed.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, I am sorry but I could not make much sense of your last post.

[Ron Amnsn]

Of course God has not rejected His people. God has always had a people.

Yes. But God is specific about who he has chosen.

You are saying that God does not keep his covenants and promises.