Christianity and Israel

[Gerr]

Is Israel the root into which all believers are grafted into? If so, to whom was Abel, Enoch, Abraham, or Noah grafted to? Who wants to be grafted to a rotten root?

ESV | ‎Re 5:5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

ESV | ‎Is 11:10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.

ESV | ‎Ro 15:12 And again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.”

[Ron Amnsn]

The Bible doesn't mention a lot of expressions, yet they are implied. Such as "Justification by Faith". Yet it is a well understood concept.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

The Bible doesn't mention a lot of expressions, yet they are implied. Such as "Justification by Faith". Yet it is a well understood concept.

Yes, Christianity has added a lot of baggage to to the Scriptures. That is why we are admonished to test everything.

1Th 5:21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

When comparing ALL the Bible verses concerning Israel, you will note that Israel has ALWAYS been "spiritual". Always. Even in the Old Testament.

This seems like a stretch to me. Nevertheless I will consider it. What do you mean by the term "spiritual" when you apply it to the Old Testament passages? Jacob was given the name Israel after his wrestling encounter with God. There was indeed a spiritual dimension to that event, but not in the same way that the term "spiritual Israel" is used. The term "spiritual Israel" is used to spiritualize away the literal meaning of the word and apply it to something that is not Israel, is separate from Israel, and has no Israelite characteristics. Can you show me some passages from the Old Testament where "Israel" is used to refer to something that is separate from the descendants of Jacob, in the same way that "spiritual Israel" is used to refer to something that is separate from the descendants of Jacob?

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

However, the Jewish Nation was the "husbandman" or "vinedresser" for the "House of Israel". But this vineyard (Israel) was taken away from the Jewish Nation and given to the Church (the new Husbandmen).

What you have said here is merely tradition. Scripture clearly refutes that tradition. Let's look at what is written.

The parable of the vineyard that you refer to is found in Matthew 21, Mark 12, and Luke 20. In Matthew 21 it starts out, "Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. (v.33) When the NASB version uses ALL CAPS it indicates that it is a quotation from the Old Testament. Here Jesus was quoting from Isaiah 5, Let's look at that whole passage.

Isaiah 5:1-7 Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it And also hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground. I will lay it waste; It will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it. For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel And the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.

The word of God through Isaiah says that Israel and Judah is represented by the vineyard of the LORD and the plants, but your tradition tells us that Israel and Judah is represented by the vinedressers or the husbandmen. Who should we believe, tradition or Scripture?

Of course it is possible (but not likely) that when Jesus quoted from Isaiah 5 he intended to change the meaning of the symbols in his version of the parable, so let's check out that possibility too.

(That will have to wait until later ...)

Good point Ron.

[skyblue888]

"If you are Christ's, you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:24.

This passage of Scripture applies to individual Jews as well as to individual Gentiles whether in Old testament times or New Testament times.

"The flesh profits nothing." John 6:63.

Even being a descendant of Abraham or of David according to the flesh profited nothing unless the eyes were fixed upon the merits of a Saviour to come. It is the same today. Unless we daily hang our helpless souls upon the merits of the Saviour who has come in order to bring His righteousness into the life, we cannot be saved.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

Of course it is possible (but not likely) that when Jesus quoted from Isaiah 5 he intended to change the meaning of the symbols in his version of the parable, so let's check out that possibility too.

All three Gospel accounts the parable of the vineyard and its husbandmen tell us that Jesus was was being questioned by the chief priest and elders of the people and the issue was authority. (Matt 21:23 ff, Mark 11:27 ff, Luke 20:1 ff) Luke tells us that Jesus addressed the parable to the people, but it is evident in all three accounts that the leaders were listening.

There is a good chance that the people listening were familiar with the passage in Isaiah 5 that Jesus quoted at the beginning of the parable, and that they knew that the vineyard and plants represented Israel and Judah.

Luke tells us that at the end of the parable some people responded "May it never be!". They may have been responding to the threat of the vineyard being taken away from the vinedressers. But it is just as likely that they were responding to the story as a whole and the prospect that the vinedressers would kill the son of the vineyard owner. (They had probably figured out that the owner's son represented the long-awaited Messiah).

There is no doubt that the chief priests and elders figured out that the parable was about themselves, and that it wasn't good news.

Matthew finishes the chapter with this statement, "When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet." (v.45, 46)

Mark concludes with, "And they were seeking to seize Him, and yet they feared the people, for they understood that He spoke the parable against them. And so they left Him and went away."(v. 12)

Luke sums up with "The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on Him that very hour, and they feared the people; for they understood that He spoke this parable against them. (v. 19)

Not only did the Jewish leaders understand that parable was about themselves, but years later when the Gospel accounts were penned the authors of the three Gospels indicated that the leaders had understood correctly.

Notice that the common people didn't turn against Jesus as the leaders did after hearing the parable. If the people had thought that Jesus was saying that God would reject the whole nation of Israel, they would have been upset like the leaders were. They probably would have rejected Jesus as a false prophet, because the Old Testament prophets are clear that God will not reject the descendants of Jacob as long as day and night continue. (Jer 33:25-26) If the people had been angry with Jesus, or if the people had rejected Jesus because of the parable, the chief priests and elders would have had no reason to fear the people when wanted to lay hands on Jesus.

So, the Gospel accounts confirm that Jesus did not change the symbolism in his parable from what the word of God had stated through Isaiah the prophet, namely that it was the vineyard and the plants that represented Israel and Judah. Jesus added the element of leadership represented by the wicked vinedressers.

This would not be the first time that God had changed the leadership of Israel without rejecting the whole nation. Some examples of earlier leadership transfers were Eli and Samuel, Saul and David, Rehoboam and Jeroboam.

[Gerr]

Let me ask you again: Is Israel the root into which all believers are grafted into? If so, to whom were Abel, Enoch, Abraham, or Noah grafted to? Who wants to be grafted to a rotten root?

Furthermore, if the tree is the literal nation of Israel, how could the unbelieving branches be broken off? If the unbelieving Israelites of the past were broken off from this mystical tree, then so is present, literal, unbelieving Israel detached from this tree. I think you are carrying out the PARABLE into unwarranted conclusions.

ESV | ‎Re 5:5 And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.”

ESV | ‎Is 11:10 In that day the root of Jesse, who shall stand as a signal for the peoples—of him shall the nations inquire, and his resting place shall be glorious.

ESV | ‎Ro 15:12 And again Isaiah says, “The root of Jesse will come, even he who arises to rule the Gentiles; in him will the Gentiles hope.”

[skyblue888]

How could anyone in his right spiritual mind think that the Jews in the Middle East are still God's people. That nation sealed her rejection of God's mercy in A.D.34 as shown in the parable of Matt.22. In that parable there are two calls to the Jewish nation. Both calls are rejected as predicted in the parable. The first call was when Jesus sent the 12 and the 70 with a message for the Jewish nation (Mark 1:15) but that call was resisted and made light of. This first call was followed by the crucifixion of Christ followed by the second call of the parable beginning at Pentecost. The nation that claimed to be God's peculiar people rejected the Gospel brought to them in the power of the Holy Spirit. Many did this in the most scornful manner. Others were so exasperated by the offer of pardon for rejecting the Lord of glory, that they turned upon the bearers of the message. There was a great persecution (Acts 8:1), and some of the Lord's messengers, as Stephen and James, were put to death. Thus the Jewish people sealed their rejection of God's mercy. The result was foretold by Christ in the parable. The judgment pronounced came upon the Jews in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70 and the scattering of the nation.

The third call of the parable represents the giving of the gospel to the Gentiles after the stoning of Stephen.

This parable is again to be fulfilled to the very letter and this time the bidden ones are Seventh-day Adventists. The parable began when Jesus passed from the Holy to the Most Holy place of the Sanctuary in Heaven on Oct.22,1844.

We are now living in the time of the second call of the parable which will be followed by the loud cry to the world represented by the third call of the parable.

History will be repeated.

sky

[Guest]

I think you are right sky.

[skyblue888]

Richard, you're probably the only one here to think I may be right.

sky :)

[doug yowell]

"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophesy, and to annoint the Most Holy.Know therefore and understand,that from the going forth of the command..."

[skyblue888]

"Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophesy, and to annoint the Most Holy.Know therefore and understand,that from the going forth of the command..."

doug yowell

______________

Exactly, the Jews did not know the time of their visitation and as a people they were set aside. But if Israel in the days of Christ had come to God with a sense of their own finite weakness and utterly helpless condition and had trusted in the merits of the Saviour for pardon and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, they would have filled the earth with the glory of God and the work would have been finished.

This mission has been entrusted to Seventh-day Adventists. If with the simple faith of a little child we daily come to God just as we are, sinful, helpless, dependent, trusting wholly in the merits of the blood of Christ for pardon and peace and everlasting righteousness in the Holy Spirit, we shall be enabled to finish the work in the earth and cut it short in righteousness. However, if we again resist the heavenly illumination, like the Jews of old, we too will be set aside (see C.O.L.304) and the Lord will finish the work with those who are not too learned or too wise to believe just what God says.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

Let me ask you again: Is Israel the root into which all believers are grafted into? If so, to whom were Abel, Enoch, Abraham, or Noah grafted to? Who wants to be grafted to a rotten root?

Good question, Gerry. Unfortunately, my "forum time" during the week is quite limited.

The short answer: Some branches are very visible, but don't mistake them for the root. Those visible branches may (or may not) be cut off branches. Most of the Israelites are still in exile from Old Testament times. The prophecies in Scripture promise a return to the Land after a return to righteousness, but much of what we see now in the Middle East is not the result of a return to righteousness.

The Christian church has had some rot too, quite close to the core.

Later I hope to have time for a longer answer.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

The Bible doesn't mention a lot of expressions, yet they are implied. Such as "Justification by Faith". Yet it is a well understood concept.

Yes, Christianity has added a lot of baggage to to the Scriptures. That is why we are admonished to test everything.

1Th 5:21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

When comparing ALL the Bible verses concerning Israel, you will note that Israel has ALWAYS been "spiritual". Always. Even in the Old Testament.

This seems like a stretch to me. Nevertheless I will consider it. What do you mean by the term "spiritual" when you apply it to the Old Testament passages? Jacob was given the name Israel after his wrestling encounter with God. There was indeed a spiritual dimension to that event, but not in the same way that the term "spiritual Israel" is used. The term "spiritual Israel" is used to spiritualize away the literal meaning of the word and apply it to something that is not Israel, is separate from Israel, and has no Israelite characteristics. Can you show me some passages from the Old Testament where "Israel" is used to refer to something that is separate from the descendants of Jacob, in the same way that "spiritual Israel" is used to refer to something that is separate from the descendants of Jacob?

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

However, the Jewish Nation was the "husbandman" or "vinedresser" for the "House of Israel". But this vineyard (Israel) was taken away from the Jewish Nation and given to the Church (the new Husbandmen).

What you have said here is merely tradition. Scripture clearly refutes that tradition. Let's look at what is written.

The parable of the vineyard that you refer to is found in Matthew 21, Mark 12, and Luke 20. In Matthew 21 it starts out, "Listen to another parable. There was a landowner who PLANTED A VINEYARD AND PUT A WALL AROUND IT AND DUG A WINE PRESS IN IT, AND BUILT A TOWER, and rented it out to vine-growers and went on a journey. (v.33) When the NASB version uses ALL CAPS it indicates that it is a quotation from the Old Testament. Here Jesus was quoting from Isaiah 5, Let's look at that whole passage.

Isaiah 5:1-7 Let me sing now for my well-beloved A song of my beloved concerning His vineyard. My well-beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hill. He dug it all around, removed its stones, And planted it with the choicest vine. And He built a tower in the middle of it And also hewed out a wine vat in it; Then He expected it to produce good grapes, But it produced only worthless ones. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge between Me and My vineyard. What more was there to do for My vineyard that I have not done in it? Why, when I expected it to produce good grapes did it produce worthless ones? So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed; I will break down its wall and it will become trampled ground. I will lay it waste; It will not be pruned or hoed, But briars and thorns will come up. I will also charge the clouds to rain no rain on it. For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel And the men of Judah His delightful plant. Thus He looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; For righteousness, but behold, a cry of distress.

The word of God through Isaiah says that Israel and Judah is represented by the vineyard of the LORD and the plants, but your tradition tells us that Israel and Judah is represented by the vinedressers or the husbandmen. Who should we believe, tradition or Scripture?

Of course it is possible (but not likely) that when Jesus quoted from Isaiah 5 he intended to change the meaning of the symbols in his version of the parable, so let's check out that possibility too.

(That will have to wait until later ...)

Brother, you seem to be really bent on stretching people's words and intents and meanings.

Did you even read my article?

http://adventistbloggers.com/forum/ubbth...html#Post461407

I gave you the link, but you did not comment on the actual arguments I presented.

Of course the men of Judah are the delightful plant! But why? Because they followed Jehovah! One cannot say they are a delightful plant if they are not worshipers of Jehovah.

Thus, the concept is still spiritual. Jacob was the man's physical name, but God gave him a spiritual name, Israel. This name was not given to him until he overcame and "prevailed".

Remember that the term "vinedressers" and "husbandmen" is interchangeable. Depending on Bible translations.

Jesus is very clear that the Jewish nation are the "husbandmen" (or vinedressers). Yet Jesus is also clear that that "vineyard" (which Isaiah declares the "House of Israel") would be let out "to OTHER VINEDRESSERS (or husbandmen)".

Therefore, it is the SAME vineyard, but with new husbandmen (or "vinedressers"). Those other husbandmen are the Church, which began with the 12 Apostles.

Those 12 Apostles replaced the 12 tribes of Israel.

1 Peter Chapter 2 and Ephesians 2:19-22 is very clear that the Church was founded by Christ, the chief corner stone with the 12 apostles being the 12 foundations of the Temple, which is the Church.

This was the "nation" which Christ let the Vineyard ("House of Israel") out to.

Israel was not replaced. It's vinedressers (husbandmen) were.

"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to GIVE you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32)

NOT replaced, but GIVEN.

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and GIVEN to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matthew 21:43)

NOT replaced, but GIVEN.

The kingdom has not been replaced. But given. Only the operators of the kingdom have been replaced.

[skyblue888]

Excellent points Lysi.

sky :)

[Ron Amnsn]

So Israel has always been the same. But the operators, or caretakers, have been different. The Jewish Nation had the keys to the house in the Old Testament, and the Church has the keys to the house in the New Testament.

I recommend a full study on this here:

The Israel of God and the False Charge of "Replacement Theology"

Lysimachus, I have read your article. I suppose it would sound convincing to someone who already shares your views.

To me it the article merely takes God's sure word to the descendants of Israel and makes it void by spiritualizing all the terms so they can be redefined. Then it asserts the same end result as "Replacement Theology", while claiming it is different than "Replacement Theology".

To the righteous Jew who has not yet accepted Jesus (because the "Jesus" presented by Christianity is profane and teaches things contrary to the Word of God in the Old Testament) the end result of your article appears to be exactly the same as "Replacement Theology", which [supposedly] transfers God's promises and covenants from Israel to the church (who actually doesn't value the the covenants).

If I understand correctly, your article says that the "church" is currently caretaker of the vineyard of Israel. But it doesn't explain what that looks like in real life. What is the "vineyard" that they are caring for. What does it look like? How is that "vineyard" different from the church? What duties do the people in the church do to actually care for this "vineyard" that is Israel? Do the actual descendants of Jacob feel cared for by the activities that the church does to care for the "vineyard"?

[miz3]

I believe Jesus Christ told Pilot that His (Jesus Christ) Kingdom was not of this world.

What does that mean?

What does that have to do with the parable Ron cited?

What are the implications of such a Kingdom in regard to the vinedressers or husbandmen?

What do Christ's words to Pilot mean for the Jewish Nation then and also now?

I think you might find yourselves a bit off the mark?

[miz3]

Why would Jesus Christ tell Pilot His Kingdom was not of this world if the Jewish Nation HAD MORE PROBATION TIME?

What Kingdom did Jesus Christ have when He told Pilot about it?

Again me thinks you have missed the truth.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

[At that time the present Jerusalem was in bondage to the Romans. For the Israelites, bondage was a consequence of disobedience to the terms of the covenant. The Law of Moses was the Law of Freedom for the Israelites -- when they obeyed they enjoyed freedom, when they moved away from Torah they suffered bondage.

Yet there was in existence a parallel Jerusalem which Paul describes as the "mother of us all" which is still in existence today.This is also described by other bible writers as the Mt. Zion/Heavenly Jerusalem,ect...Why the need for a literal Israel if believers in Christ are already citizens of the "church registered in heaven"?

Paul was writing to non-Jewish believers who were living within a Jewish community, and were being pressured to go through the traditional man-made proselyte process (which in the eyes of the Jews would have turned the non-Jews into Jews) in order to gain full-member status within the Jewish community. Paul was teaching those non-Jews (from the Torah) that they didn't need to resort to human-invented schemes in order to obtain full status in God's eyes. When Abraham resorted to human-invented schemes to get an heir, it actually was a step backward from the real goal, resulting in the Hagar/Ishmael problem. From the perspective of the heavenly Jerusalem, the non-Jewish believers were already full-members by virtue of their faith and allegiance to Jesus. Paul did not advise them to leave the Jewish community and start their own church, rather they were to resist the pressure to become proselytes and endure disdain/persecution from the Jews as Isaac endured the disdain from Ishmael and Hagar, and wait for the fulfillment of the promised status as heirs.

True, from the perspective of the Jerusalem above, they had full status as believers and heirs. But Paul still expected them to remain in community with the Jews, not separate from them. The non-Jewish believers would see the fulfillment of their true status at some future time, just as Jerusalem would see the fulfillment of its restoration at some future time.

The Jerusalem above is the promised fulfillment of God's Old Testament prophecies regarding the literal place in Judea called Jerusalem.

[John317]

Why would Jesus Christ tell Pilot His Kingdom was not of this world if the Jewish Nation HAD MORE PROBATION TIME?

What Kingdom did Jesus Christ have when He told Pilot about it?

Again me thinks you have missed the truth.

Saying His kingdom is not of this world has nothing whatever to do with the probation of the Jewish nation.

Can you show the connection in the Bible between those things?

But yes, at the time of the Messiah's death, the Jewish people had about 3 1/2 years before their probation would run out. It ended in AD 34 when they rejected the gospel and stoned Stephen. That was the end of the 790 years that God had given the Jews to do what is mentioned in Daniel 9: 24.

By the way, miz3, the name is Pilate.

A "pilot" is someone who flies an airplane.

[skyblue888]

By the way John its not 790 years but 490. hehe

[skyblue888]

miz3 the kingdom Jesus was referring to is the kingdom of grace. This kingdom is not of this world but of Heaven. It is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

"The kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:21.

"Fear not little flock for it is the good pleasure of the Father to give you the Kingdom."

Luke 12:32.

"The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Rom.14:17.

Today the kingdom of God within us is glory in the form of grace but in the hereafter this grace will burst into glory.

sky

[Ron Amnsn]

Is Israel the root into which all believers are grafted into? If so, to whom was Abel, Enoch, Abraham, or Noah grafted to?

[doug yowell]

This was the "nation" which Christ let the Vineyard ("House of Israel") out to.

Israel was not replaced. It's vinedressers (husbandmen) were.

"Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to GIVE you the kingdom." (Luke 12:32)

NOT replaced, but GIVEN.

"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and GIVEN to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matthew 21:43)

NOT replaced, but GIVEN.

The kingdom has not been replaced. But given. Only the operators of the kingdom have been replaced.

Yes, but other than those things...ect...ect...???

[doug yowell]

To me it the article merely takes God's sure word to the descendants of Israel and makes it void by spiritualizing all the terms so they can be redefined. Then it asserts the same end result as "Replacement Theology", while claiming it is different than "Replacement Theology".

To the righteous Jew who has not yet accepted Jesus (because the "Jesus" presented by Christianity is profane and teaches things contrary to the Word of God in the Old Testament) the end result of your article appears to be exactly the same as "Replacement Theology", which [supposedly] transfers God's promises and covenants from Israel to the church (who actually doesn't value the the covenants).

If I understand correctly, your article says that the "church" is currently caretaker of the vineyard of Israel. But it doesn't explain what that looks like in real life. What is the "vineyard" that they are caring for. What does it look like? How is that "vineyard" different from the church? What duties do the people in the church do to actually care for this "vineyard" that is Israel? Do the actual descendants of Jacob feel cared for by the activities that the church does to care for the "vineyard"?

Let's flip your questions around, Ron, and ask them of literal Israel.Let's add a couple of more clarifying questions like:1) Who is identified as literal Israel? How do we know that they are truely the literal Israel to whom God made those unconditional covenants? Which group does the believing Jew belong to, Israel, or the church? Does a "spiritual Israel" exist?

[doug yowell]

To the righteous Jew who has not yet accepted Jesus (because the "Jesus" presented by Christianity is profane and teaches things contrary to the Word of God in the Old Testament) the end result of your article appears to be exactly the same as "Replacement Theology", which [supposedly] transfers God's promises and covenants from Israel to the church (who actually doesn't value the the covenants).

If I understand correctly, your article says that the "church" is currently caretaker of the vineyard of Israel. But it doesn't explain what that looks like in real life. What is the "vineyard" that they are caring for. What does it look like? How is that "vineyard" different from the church? What duties do the people in the church do to actually care for this "vineyard" that is Israel? Do the actual descendants of Jacob feel cared for by the activities that the church does to care for the "vineyard"?

This statement and it's following questions seem to highlight the problem you are having with the idea of the Spiritual Israel. Seems like you're having a hard time understanding what the gospel is to begin with. Does the OT teach that the gospel is all about the Jews?? Was circumcision a sign of the favoritism of God towards the descendants of Abraham or the sign of the faith that Abraham had before he became a "Jew"? Which of God's promises has He not fulfilled to the literal descendants of Jacob? The ideas your theology here puts forth are in essence no different than the theology that kept the Jew's from accepting Christ when He first came.