Christianity and Israel

[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).

As opposed to the Jewish nation that has a history of valuing and embracing those covenants???

[doug yowell]

If I understand correctly, your article says that the "church" is currently caretaker of the vineyard of Israel.

Don't know what the article said but the vineyard spoken of by Jesus includes much more than merely the nation of Israel. Israel itself was responsible for the evangelism of the world so failure to care for the spiritual needs of Israel also affected the entire purpose of the vineyard in the first place.The NT church fulfilled what the nation itself had failed to do in 1500 years.Paul describes this as "(the mystery of Christ),which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets; that the Gentiles should be FELLOW HEIRS, OF THE SAME BODY, AND PARTAKERS OF HIS PROMISE IN CHRIST through the gospel...to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church (not the nation of Israel?)... according to the eternal purpose..."

[Lysimachus]

God is a covenant keeper.

First off, I'll just start out by telling you what the vineyard looks like. The vineyard represent all those tender plants that are joined to the tree, which is Jesus Christ. All those who have repented and confessed Christ and turned away from sin constitute God's tender plants. But their source of life is from the fountain of living water, Jesus Christ. Those of use who God calls to ministry must nurture these plants, whether they be Jews or Gentiles.

Jews cannot be saved outside of the body of Christ. Paul is unequivocally clear that the Church represents the "body OF Christ". To create a distinction between Israel and the Church is to admit that one group can be saved outside of Christ's body. This is preposterous Ron! And you should know this.

God never breaks any of His covenants. He is a covenant keeper like you said. However, you seem to forget a very simple element: That being, while God never breaks His covenants with His people, His people have the choice to break their covenants with Him.

A covenant is a "pact", a "contract" a "binding agreement", a "promise" between two parties.

Israel broke THEIR end of the agreement. But God did not break His end of the agreement.

And this can be proven from scripture!

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:" (Hebrews 8:7,8)

Question: why was the covenant faultless? Because God found fault with the way Israel promised. He found fault with THEM, the children of Israel.

God's end of the covenant was perfect. Israels' end of it destroyed it. This is why a new covenant became absolutely necessary, because the first one became faultless through the poor promises of Israel. But this New Covenant, although to the House of Israel, applies to the Church!

Israel became a harlot. An adulterous wife.

Adultery of God's wife requires a DIVINE DIVORCE after given NUMEROUS chances.

Why did Israel fail?

Answer:

"But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone." (Romans 9:31,32)

In Hosea 1:6, we see the termination of the literal, local, kingdom of Israel, was foretold by the meaning of the name “Lo-ruhamah.” It reads: “And God said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah, that is, not having obtained mercy: for I will have no more mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away” (Hosea 1:6). When the prophet’s third child was born, God said “Call his name Lo-ammi, that is, not My people: for ye are not My people, and I will not be your God.” (Verse 9). The rejection, and later, the restoration of the northern ten tribes are taught in the meanings of the names of the prophet’s children. The prophecy of Hosea 1:10 and 11 is based on the meanings of these names. Paul, in Romans 9:22-28, presents the spiritual interpretation of Hosea’s prophecy: through the Gentiles accepting Christ! “The numberer of the children of Israel shall be as the sands of the sea.” (verse 27).

Ron, my fear is that you are resting in a false hope for the literal nation of Israel in the Middle East. I appeal to you to abandon this injurious mindset because I believe with absolute conviction that such a doctrine is a deleterious distraction--the Devil's counterfeit prophecy to distract and lead millions of blind-people into a false hope. Such will be caught unawares as the Devil takes them by surprise when the Papacy once again gains a hold of men's minds.

[Lysimachus]

And I should make clear that, while in concept, the kingdom that was Israel's was taken away from them and given to the Church, this is not to mean that the Church is doing what it is supposed to be doing.

By Christ's Church is meant all true believers who hold to the covenant promise. Only those who have the Law written in their hearts and live it out will inherit this covenant promise.

God does not break His covenant, but we can break ourselves from that binding agreement if we so choose. But we will pay the consequences, as God is not at fault here, but we are.

Israel failed to carry the gospel commission to the world. Had they done so, ALL those nations that accepted Jehovah would have been included in the covenant, and become a "part" of the House of Israel. And Isaiah 56 is very clear that such gentiles, or strangers, would take hold of the covenant and keep the Sabbath, and their sacrifices and offerings (which can be applied spiritually as well) would be accepted.

[doug yowell]

Israel failed to carry the gospel commission to the world. Had they done so, ALL those nations that accepted Jehovah would have been included in the covenant, and become a "part" of the House of Israel. And Isaiah 56 is very clear that such gentiles, or strangers, would take hold of the covenant and keep the Sabbath, and their sacrifices and offerings (which can be applied spiritually as well) would be accepted.

Hard to argue with that. But ya gotta admit that the church started out like gangbusters,even with the literal Israel doing everything it could to stop them (Rev. 12).

[Ron Amnsn]

"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.

What you say is very true, Sky. Are you sure you meant it?

The word Christ is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Messiah. In Old Testament times the heirs of Abraham put their faith in the coming Messiah that was promised. That was before Messiah had a name. Yet that faith in the promised Messiah was sufficient, even though they didn't know his name. I think you will agree with that part.

Today the literal descendants of Abraham still have faith in the promised Messiah ("Christ" as it would be said in Greek), even though they still don't know His name. And they are still heirs of Abraham today just as their Old Testament ancestors were.

The vast majority of Jews who have lived since Jesus was born have never heard a truthful presentation about Jesus. Some of them have heard what Christians usually teach about Jesus -- that he [supposedly] did away with the Law of Moses and ended the Sinai covenant -- and they have rejected that "Jesus" as a false prophet (as they should). Some of them have heard from other Jews negative reports about "Yeshu" (the derogatory term used to refer to the Christian "Jesus"). Some of them have heard nothing at all about Jesus. Very, very few have heard the real truth about Jesus. Nevertheless, many Jews still have faith in Messiah ("Christ") just as their Old Testament ancestors did, and they are still heirs of Abraham. That faith is still sufficient as it was in Old Testament times.

If knowing the real name of the Messiah is required to make one's faith in Christ sufficient, then most English-speaking Christians would be in serious trouble, because they think the Messiah's real name was "Jesus". It wasn't. Jesus was never called by the name "Jesus" during his earthly life. But knowing Messiah's actual name isn't a requirement for Christians. And it isn't a requirement for Jews either.

[skyblue888]

Ron, here is why I meant: Any Jew today who is Christ by faith is Abraham's seed and heir of God according to the promise just as any other human being on the planet who is Christ's by faith, by trusting wholly in the merits of His infinite sacrifice for His acceptance with God and for the gift of the Holy Spirit which brings all other blessings in its train.

sky

[Lysimachus]

You mean "in Christ by faith" sky.

[skyblue888]

Yes to be Christ's by faith certainly means to be in Christ by faith, by appropriating His merits to ourselves, and this is done by claiming them. The merits of Christ are the remedy provided for sin whether Jew or Gentile.

But the thing is that since A.D.34 the Jews have been in the same category as the Gentiles.

sky

[Lysimachus]

Sky,

I was just correcting a typo. You said "everyone who is Christ". ;P

[doug yowell]

Today the literal descendants of Abraham still have faith in the promised Messiah ("Christ" as it would be said in Greek), even though they still don't know His name. And they are still heirs of Abraham today just as their Old Testament ancestors were.

The vast majority of Jews who have lived since Jesus was born have never heard a truthful presentation about Jesus. Some of them have heard what Christians usually teach about Jesus -- that he [supposedly] did away with the Law of Moses and ended the Sinai covenant -- and they have rejected that "Jesus" as a false prophet (as they should). Some of them have heard from other Jews negative reports about "Yeshu" (the derogatory term used to refer to the Christian "Jesus"). Some of them have heard nothing at all about Jesus. Very, very few have heard the real truth about Jesus.

Most of what modern day Jews believe (the few religious ones left)about God,the identity and work of the Messiah, the authority of the OT, and Israel's place in the world is a result of the teachings of their own religious leaders over the past 20 centuries.The rabbi's merely contnue with most of the misrepresentations of the OT writings that has begun long before Jesus lifetime.Ask an informed religious Jew today why they reject the Messianic claims of Christ and you will get pretty much the same answer,"He doesn't fit the Biblical model of the Saviour of Israel." They're still stuck in the mindset that required the Messiah to set up the nation of Israel as the top dog of this world much like David and Solomon did.They see the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as being the nation of Israel itself.Can't blame that on Christianity!!

[doug yowell]

[Nevertheless, many Jews still have faith in Messiah ("Christ") just as their Old Testament ancestors did, and they are still heirs of Abraham. That faith is still sufficient as it was in Old Testament times.

It is neither the name of the Messiah nor the concept of a Messiah that is sufficient to save anyone.It is the work of the Messiah that requires saving faith. (...for He shall save His people from their sins.")" The Man from Nazareth who claimed to be God is the only true test of faith.

[Ron Amnsn]

"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.

Sometimes it seems that Christianity is so fixated on "getting saved" from the lake of fire, that they can't see the goodness and benefits of God's covenants with Israel.

God's covenants with Abraham and the Israelites have very little to do with "getting saved" for the world to come. The covenants are about how to honor God in this life and to live righteously in this life. The covenants contain provisions for Israel to be saved in this life from famine, pestilence, bondage, the sword, exile, sinful living, homelessness, injustice, etc.

The fragment you quoted from John 6:63 is part of Jesus' explanation of the preceding passage where Jesus spoke metaphorically about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, something that is forbidden in God's Law in the literal physical sense.

If Jesus meant that nobody receives physical benefits from the promises and covenants that God gave to their physical forefathers (as you seem to interpret the fragment), then Jesus uttered a falsehood. God's word is full of accounts showing that individuals have benefited physically from the blessings they inherited from their forefathers.

The Israelites weren't saved from Egyptian slavery because every individual was "in Christ". Rather, God redeemed Israel from Egypt because God had promised Abraham that his descendants would be rescued from bondage. It was a physical blessing based on physical lineage. Of course, the mixed multitude was also able to share with Israel in the blessing that Israel received because of their physical lineage.

Even Jesus stated that, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matt 15:24) That disagrees with the prevalent definition of Israel espoused on this thread. The "spiritual Israel" folks would try to tell me that "lost sheep" are not "in Christ" and therefore not part of Israel. Jesus on the other hand said that lost sheep are part of the house of Israel, and that because of their physical lineage they are more entitled to the kind of physical blessing that the foreign woman was pleading for.

Paul also says in Romans that some things are for "the Jew first, and also for the Greek". That's a priority based on physical lineage.

[miz3]

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

Thank you John317 and Sky for the corrections. Even though we may know what is meant in the communication we should however be accurate and such corrections are welcomed by myself.

We are not talking about nit picking for example in regard to using the word "to" when we should have used the word "too". That would be nit picking and does nothing for the discussion. However spelling Pilate correctly and getting the "years correct" is not nit picking but is good for accuracy.

[miz3]

I think we are all missing the point.

The debate is and never was about "literal Israel" and/or "spiritual Israel". In fact despite what many think in regard to Paul, Paul was never about these two items and who belonged to who.

Paul was always about who belonged to Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ "chose" the human. Most humans pollute Paul by thinking it is because humans "chose God/Jesus Christ. The sequence is vital. Satan has gotten most humans including the SDA to think backwards and in the wrong sequence.

Everything but everything goes back to Genesis 3:15.

That is "THE COVENANT"! In fact it is and has been the ONLY COVENANT throughout human history. This Covenant is not about humans and whether they are "literal this" or "spiritual that", or SDA, or future "literal this" or "that". It is also not about this "beast" or that "beast" and which "human entity" does this or that in prophecy. Such things and debates miss the the TRUTH AND GOD'S POINT altogether.

In Genesis 3:15 and I here cite the text:

"And I will put enmity

between you and the woman,

and between your offspring[a] and hers;

he will crush your head,

and you will strike his heel."

Genesis 3:15.

This is both the Gospel and the Covenant.

Notice the Covenant does not require the human to do anything. The human is the recipient of what God and only God does.

God will put hatred between the "human" and "sin and satan". God will crush "sin and satan".

There is nothing in this Gospel and in this Covenant about humans doing anything. It is all about God and what God does.

The humans don't generate the hatred because they can't when they are already in love with sin. Humans cannot crush "sin and satan" for the same reason. This is why God says that He and He alone will do it all.

It is all about what God does for the human and to the human. The human does NOTHING! Why? Because they are not able to.

The reason humans after the fall got in trouble is because they REJECTED THIS COVENANT and tried to do something themselves. This began with Cain bring his own work. Cain REJECTED God's work and God's Covenant. The result was the death of "righteous Able". Next came the "righteous" uniting with the humans who did their own thing like Cain and the result was the Flood.

After the Flood the righteous Noah had descendents that determined to do their "own salvation" and built the Tower, changed Sabbath Saturday Worship for Sunday Worship of the sun.

Then came righteous Abraham amidst an almost totally pagan world etc. etc. Human history is littered with what humans do on their own and what a failure it has been.

Even "righteous" Abraham repeatedly fell into this trap, until the test of sacrificing Isaac. Abraham tried his solutions and everyone of them was an abysmal failure which caused more pain which could have been avoided if Abraham had just been "still" and watched the power of God at Work.

In all of this the Covenant did not change. The Covenant was and always will be about what God and God alone does and it is never about what humans do.

Even today the Gospel has been polluted from God does and is everything to what humans must do to be "saved".

If the "human entity 'believes' then the human entity is saved". That makes salvation the responsibility of the "human entity" just like Cain millenea ago. Genesis 3:15 does not support a Gospel or Covenant where humans do anything including "believe".

God in the Covenant and the Gospel says, "I will ........" and that and that alone is what saves us unless like Cain we REJECT GOD'S COVENANT. In fact if we truly "believe" that is not our work that is the Work of God for and in us.

It all depends on whether you are "human centric" about the Bible or "God centric" about the Bible. Cain was clearly "human centric".

[Ron Amnsn]

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.

God's covenant with Abraham stipulates, "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant." (Genesis 14:17)

The Law of Moses stipulates that individuals would be cut off from their people for a whole list of offences, such as not humbling themselves on the Day of Atonement, or eating blood, or not observing Passover, or defiant sin. Several of these situations apply equally to aliens as they do to Israelites. God knows who has been cut off and who has not been cut off from Israel.

You talk as if all of literal Israel is presently unbelieving. That is not the case. Remember when Elijah thought that he was the only one in Israel still serving God? Yet there were 7000 in Israel at that time who had not worshipped Baal. There are presently about 15,000 Messianic Jews (who believe in Jesus) in the country of Israel. And there are many more Jews in Israel today who have not worshiped Baal. And there are many more spread throughout the lands where the Israelites are still scattered.

I don't think you and I get to decide who from among the descendants of Jacob get cut off for unbelief. God is the one who does the pruning. He knows which individuals are cut off and which ones aren't.

[Ron Amnsn]

How could anyone in his right spiritual mind think that the Jews in the Middle East are still God's people.

Because God's Word is true. God's promises, covenants, and prophecies are reliable, even though humans are not.

It's not just the Jews in the the Middle East, it's the descendants of Jacob that are scattered among the nations of the earth.

When the Old Testament prophecies are read as they were written (without substituting "the church" into the place of Israel), the big picture becomes clear. God is dealing faithfully with the Israelites for His name's sake, not according to their evil ways. (Ezek 20:44) Everything that has happened to Israel is according to the provisions of God's covenant with them and His word to the prophets. The prophets even foretold that it would be falsely said that the descendants of Jacob are no longer a nation before God.

Paul testified, "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets" (Acts 24:14) That's why he didn't teach about Israel what is being asserted against Israel on this thread.

[ClubV12]

34 AD, the the Israelites were done, the gospel went to all the world. Spiritual Jews, of which I am one. The Nation of Israel is no more special than Africa today in terms of Gods remanant people.

[Ron Amnsn]

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.

Sky, where in Scripture do you find your interpretation of the Matt 22 parable? I've searched the Scriptures and I can not find it. I suspect that your interpretation of the parable is simply the doctrines of men. What you have written here disagrees with God's word and disagrees with the parable itself.

The parable of the wedding in Matt. 22 does seem rather ominous for the Jews when viewed from the perspective of a Gentile Christian who reads the parable with the presupposition that God rejected the Jews.

But no one in the crowd that was listening to Jesus had any presuppositions about the Jews being rejected. In fact, the folks in the crowd had the opposite belief about the destiny of Israel, a belief that was solidly based on the surety of God's word.

How would those Jewish listeners have understood the parable? They would have identified the King as a Jew, especially since Jesus had said the story was descriptive of the Kingdom of Heaven. The folks invited to the wedding would have been Jews as well, because that's who you invite to Jewish weddings. The original wedding guests would have been the wealthy and powerful Jews - the kind of people who associate with kings. The Pharisees and Jewish leaders in the crowd probably identified themselves as the original guests - until the story turned sour. However, the common people listening to the parable had probably never been invited to an important wedding, so they would have identified themselves with those who were invited later.

After the second invitation in the parable, all the bad guests were destroyed. So if those bad guests represented the Jewish nation, we should expect that all of the Jewish nation would have been destroyed after rejecting the invitation. But they weren't. That's where your interpretation disagrees with the parable itself. The destroyed guests couldn't represent the whole Jewish nation.

The new guests brought in from the byways by the servants to fill the wedding feast would have been Jews as well - because it was going to be a Jewish wedding feast.

In the crowd listening to the parable, there may have been no-one who identified with the man lacking a wedding garment. Everyone knows (or so I've been told) that to go to an important Jewish wedding you have to wear the wedding garment provided. The guy without the wedding garment must have been unfamiliar with Jewish customs. Maybe he was a Gentile who didn't know about Jewish customs, or maybe he figured he didn't need to follow Jewish customs because he was Christian who had separated himself from the Jews -- a man so separated from the Jews that he had forgotten that the bridegroom at this wedding is Jewish.

After the garment-less man was cast out, the rest of the Jewish common folks enjoyed the banquet put on by the noble Jewish king.

Jesus was a Jew talking to Jews, and from a Jewish perspective the parable has no anti-Jewish meaning at all. It did have an ominous message for the Jewish leaders who would presume they would be invited to the grand wedding.

Jesus was aware of the confidence the Jews had about being the chosen nation of God. If he intended any of the other players in the wedding parable to be non-Jews, he would have specified that, because he knew that the hearers would not automatically assume that.

Also, this parable starts out with, "And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables," so we know that this parable is connected to what came before it. Looking in the preceding chapter we see who Jesus was talking to: "And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching." (v. 23) Then Matthew related some questions and parables and concluded with the observation, "And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet." Then immediately comes the parable of Matt. 22 which was spoken again to those same chief priests and elders of the people.

[miz3]

34 AD, the the Israelites were done, the gospel went to all the world. Spiritual Jews, of which I am one. The Nation of Israel is no more special than Africa today in terms of Gods remanant people.

The Bible doesn't say that.

These are your false assumptions based on your parochial views as an SDA.

[Lysimachus]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

34 AD, the the Israelites were done, the gospel went to all the world. Spiritual Jews, of which I am one. The Nation of Israel is no more special than Africa today in terms of Gods remanant people.

The Bible doesn't say that.

These are your false assumptions based on your parochial views as an SDA.

The Bible does not say specifically "Israel was a nation no more in 34 A.D.". But this can be logically deduced. We have already provided the monumental evidence for this.

There is no assumption. These dates are in stone.

[doug yowell]

[doug yowell]

I don't think you and I get to decide who from among the descendants of Jacob get cut off for unbelief. God is the one who does the pruning. He knows which individuals are cut off and which ones aren't.

And why can't we know? Apparently Paul knew. Deciding and knowing are not the same thing.If unbelief is the only requisite for being removed from the olive tree and Paul clearly says that both Jews and Gentiles will be cut off the tree if they don't "continue in His goodness" then what's the big mystery? Has their public decision to not follow Christ now become some sort of spriritual secret? And if both (believing) Gentiles and Jews are a part of this natural olive tree then what advantage can the circumcised Jew claim over the uncircumcised Gentile?

[Lysimachus]

Well spoken Doug.

In reading Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by Dr. LeRoy Froom, there were numerous Protestant expositors in the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries who placed the 70 weeks between 457/458 B.C. to 33/34 A.D. All of them were unanimous that the end of the 70 weeks was the last chance for Israel as a nation.

Miz3 loves to try and make all of this "SDA theology", when really, it is sound orthodox Protestant theology that pre-dated Adventism.

[ClubV12]

Lysimachus, you have a PM.