Christianity and Israel

[Lysimachus]

The fact that God has made a covenant only with Israel is proof positive that God's covenant is not only made to Israel of fleshly kin. Isaiah 56 clearly alludes to this same covenant made to Israel as also a covenant made to gentiles. Therefore, this unambiguously proves that God's covenants are not exclusive to geopolitical Israel. They include all people, from all over the world. However, anyone can sever their connection with that covenant. Anyone! Just like anyone of those gentiles in Isaiah 56 can break their covenant with God, so can any Jew. It's no different.

Therefore, the Party is the same. Those who are loyal to His covenant. And only those who are loyal to His covenant remain as "Israel" in God's eyes. Israel's borders have now been extended to the entire human race in Christ Jesus, so the covenant made with Israel includes Gentiles. But, just like the Gentiles can break their covenant with God, the Jews can also break their covenant with God.

Matthew 21:43 is unambiguously clear. The kingdom was taken and given to a new nation. That new nation is clearly defined in 2 Peter 2:9--revealing that the Church has inherited all the titles of Israel. This is very simple for a child to understand, and oh how glorious this truth has appeared to those who were searching for truth. When I showed them these verses, a light bulb went on and it was like they became a new person.

I'm done arguing with you Ron. You just keep plowing like a bulldozer and you don't stop. Go read those links I gave you, from beginning to end, and maybe you will learn something. It's all documented. All those links refute your above arguments. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel.

This is a settled case.

[Lysimachus]

Covenants are made with specific parties. If you change the parties, it is not the same covenant.

It is the same covenant. Period. There is really only one covenant that was broken up into two.

The Old Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant broken (by the poor promises of Israel, which rested in their own merits and not the merits of the Lord working in them). The New Covenant was the Everlasting Covenant recaptured, restored, and made better by the blood of Christ, where God promises to take the SAME 10 Commandment Laws and write them in our hearts, so that we keep them and obey them out of true love. The ultimate proof is that the "everlasting covenant" mentioned in Genesis 9:16 was ratified by the blood of Christ in Hebrews 13:20. Yet we know it was the New Covenant ratified at the cross. That same new covenant made with Israel is a covenant now made to ALL those who have the law written in their hearts according to Jeremiah 31. National Israel, through its leadership, proved that this law was not written in their heart. They committed NATIONAL apostasy. Therefore, these husbandmen were KICKED OUT, and the Church replaced these husbandmen to care for the Vineyard, Israel.

This is very simple to understand, and you just keep posting and posting and posting and feeling like you have to respond to every single phrase I make instead of just of just trying to think about what I am saying.

[Ron Amnsn]

The ultimate proof is that the "everlasting covenant" mentioned in Genesis 9:16 was ratified by the blood of Christ in Hebrews 13:20.

I think this would be the ultimate proof that you have no regard for the context of the words that God gave us in Scripture, Lysimachus.

The "everlasting covenant" in Genesis 9:16 is made with the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth, as well as with Noah and his descendants. (Genesis 9:9-16) It was God's promise that earth would not be totally destroyed again by a flood.

That covenant is everlasting like God's other covenants. But to say that the everlasting covenant in Genesis 9:16 is the same everlasting covenant that is mentioned in Hebrews 13:20 would not be a responsible interpretation of Scripture.

Seeing unrelated passages linked together as "proof texts" like you have done should raise a HUGE red warning flag and trigger loud alarm bells in the hearts and minds of those who love God and His Word.

[Ron Amnsn]

This is very simple to understand, and you just keep posting and posting and posting and feeling like you have to respond to every single phrase I make instead of just of just trying to think about what I am saying.

If it is so simple, why have you not answered the questions I have asked you in this thread?

[Ron Amnsn]

The fact that God has made a covenant only with Israel is proof positive that God's covenant is not only made to Israel of fleshly kin. Isaiah 56 clearly alludes to this same covenant made to Israel as also a covenant made to gentiles. Therefore, this unambiguously proves that God's covenants are not exclusive to geopolitical Israel.

God's covenants with Abraham and Israel have always included those who join themselves to Israel as did the mixed multitude who left Egypt with Israel. It doesn't include those who keep themselves separate from the natural descendants of Jacob.

Even in Isaiah 56 the LORD tells the foreigners to not say they are separated from His people (verse 3). It goes on to say that those same foreigners will be brought to God's holy mountain where they will offer burnt offerings and sacrifices on the altar (verse 7). That indicates that those foreigners will be keeping more than just the "10 commandments". In order to approach the altar the foreigners would need to be keeping all the commandments of God (the Law of Moses), like those Gentiles who are described as "Jews inwardly" in Romans 2.

It is a profound fallacy to think that "geopolitical Israel" is equivalent to the nation (people group) of the Israelites who are the natural descendants of Jacob and the heirs of the covenants. The Jewish people in "geopolitical Israel" are only a very tiny subset of all the natural descendants of Jacob who are currently scattered among the nations.

[Lysimachus]

Ron,

Your view of the covenants is such a discombobulated mess that it is difficult to even know how to debate you because you view them in such contorted lenses.

I invite you to read pages 9-28 of this link here concerning the Everlasting Covenant:

http://www.hearingthetruth.org/chapter3.pdf

...if you want to ascertain my view of the Everlasting Covenant. It matters not if it includes animals and creatures and beasts. It is still part of the same Everlasting Covenant. You're missing the big picture, and these pages hopefully will help you out of hole you have inadvertently found yourself in. I have not responded to a lot of your questions because 1. I do not have the time, and 2. Your questions are already answered in the links I gave you, but apparently you do not wish to read them.

Your loss then.

I cannot help that. I simply do not have the time.

[doug yowell]

It is a profound fallacy to think that "geopolitical Israel" is equivalent to the nation (people group) of the Israelites who are the natural descendants of Jacob and the heirs of the covenants. The Jewish people in "geopolitical Israel" are only a very tiny subset of all the natural descendants of Jacob who are currently scattered among the nations.

So for clarity's sake, who are the covenants of God made with, Geopolitical Israel?The Dispersion? Both? Neither? How bout talking about one at a time and relating how or if the covenants always include them and why?

[Ron Amnsn]

So for clarity's sake, who are the covenants of God made with, Geopolitical Israel?The Dispersion? Both? Neither? How bout talking about one at a time and relating how or if the covenants always include them and why?

First, Doug, let me say that I generally don't use symbolism when I write unless speaking about an obvious metaphor like the olive tree in Romans 11. I also avoid using the term "Israel" because its meaning is ambiguous. So to understand what I have written you'll need to take it literally. When I say "the descendants of Jacob" I really mean those whose ancestors include the man Jacob (aka Israel). That's also what I mean when I say "Israelites".

God's covenants are made with the people that the Bible says they are made with. Literally. The Israelites inherited Abraham's covenants and received an additional covenant at Sinai, which was passed on to their descendants. (Any foreigners who joined themselves to the Israelites, as Ruth did, could also be part of the covenants).

Today, those who are descendants of Jacob have inherited the covenants. It is possible that some of Jacob's descendants have been "cut-off" as stipulated in the covenants. God knows who the descendants of Jacob are and whether or not they have been cut off. Although Christians assume that not accepting the Messiah is a sin that causes people to be "cut-off", that is erroneous because such a stipulation was not part of the covenant God made with the Israelites -- it's just something that Christians would like to add to the covenant retroactively.

Where do you find the descendants of Jacob today? All over the place. Some of them are currently living in the land that God promised to Abraham, but most of them are dispersed among the nations until the "second exodus" spoken of by the OT prophets.

God's covenants with the Israelites include only what is specified in the covenants. Few Christians have bothered to read the covenants to try to understand what is actually included.

People who spiritualize "Israel" to change its meaning, composition, and characteristics also tend to spiritualize the covenants to change the participants and what's included. Such conjecture makes interesting (but misleading) sermons and books. People who are quite ignorant about God's actual covenants with the Israelites can often talk or write eloquently and authoritatively about the conjectured covenants. For these people the actual covenants with the Israelites are unfamiliar territory which cause confusion because they've redefined the words to mean something different than what Scripture says.

[Gerr]

Ron, the term "Israelite" is not as ambiguous as you are making it sound. The Bible presents two different kinds of Israelite and two kinds of Abrahamic descendants and two kinds of Jews - 1) those of the flesh 2) those of the Spirit. The REAL inheritors of the blessings of the covenant is NOT those of the flesh, but those of the Spirit. The Israelites/Jews/descendants of Abraham through the flesh do receive some fallout of God's blessings to those of the Spirit. The Bible repeatedly mentions how blessings were given for Abraham's sake, or for David's sake.

Of what body of people (church) is Christ the head of?

[doug yowell]

[color:blue] Ron, the term "Israelite" is not as ambiguous as you are making it sound. The Bible presents two different kinds of Israelite and two kinds of Abrahamic descendants and two kinds of Jews - 1) those of the flesh 2) those of the Spirit. The REAL inheritors of the blessings of the covenant is NOT those of the flesh, but those of the Spirit. The Israelites/Jews/descendants of Abraham through the flesh do receive some fallout of God's blessings to those of the Spirit. The Bible repeatedly mentions how blessings were given for Abraham's sake, or for David's sake.

Simple enough, I'd think. One might even note that the original covenant with Abram was made before he was a Jew. Which brings up an interesting question, was Abraham an Israelite?

[doug yowell]

First, Doug, let me say that I generally don't use symbolism when I write unless speaking about an obvious metaphor like the olive tree in Romans 11. I also avoid using the term "Israel" because its meaning is ambiguous. So to understand what I have written you'll need to take it literally. When I say "the descendants of Jacob" I really mean those whose ancestors include the man Jacob (aka Israel). That's also what I mean when I say "Israelites".

That's fair enough but it makes it the question harder to discuss when the Apostle Paul uses a different approach. Christians reason from his understanding of Israel rather than from your model.Paul clearly speaks of an Israel, and Jews, (see Gerry's post) that don't include the literal birth descendants of Jacob. Paul also clarifies what he meant by this differentiation in several different places in the NT.His explanation leaves no reason for ambiguity as to which Israel he is referring to.Here's just one example: "They are not all Israel who are of Israel...that is the children of the flesh,these are NOT the children of God..."This definition appears to go against what you've been saying. Can you explain why? Do you think Paul may have not understood what he was talking about?

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, the term "Israelite" is not as ambiguous as you are making it sound. The Bible presents two different kinds of Israelite and two kinds of Abrahamic descendants and two kinds of Jews - 1) those of the flesh 2) those of the Spirit. The REAL inheritors of the blessings of the covenant is NOT those of the flesh, but those of the Spirit. The Israelites/Jews/descendants of Abraham through the flesh do receive some fallout of God's blessings to those of the Spirit. The Bible repeatedly mentions how blessings were given for Abraham's sake, or for David's sake.

[Lysimachus]

So if Gentiles can join themselves with Israel, as you say above, then what is it that you are saying that is different from what we are already saying? Obviously, if a Gentile is part of the House of Israel, they are then Spiritual Jews.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Of what body of people (church) is Christ the head of?

It would be the assembly of those who love Messiah and follow God's instructions.

So then, is this assembly the Israel of the flesh or of the spirit?

Quote:

"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man" (1 Cor 11:3)

Does "every man" refer to believers or unbelievers as well?

[doug yowell]

So if Gentiles can join themselves with Israel, as you say above, then what is it that you are saying that is different from what we are already saying? Obviously, if a Gentile is part of the House of Israel, they are then Spiritual Jews.

Yes, very reasonable question.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Lysimachus

So if Gentiles can join themselves with Israel, as you say above, then what is it that you are saying that is different from what we are already saying? Obviously, if a Gentile is part of the House of Israel, they are then Spiritual Jews.

Yes, very reasonable question.

I think so too...

[Ron Amnsn]

So if Gentiles can join themselves with Israel, as you say above, then what is it that you are saying that is different from what we are already saying?

[Dr. Rich]

Does Israel still have significance to Christians other than the history that it brings which led to Christ? I ask because I will attend this one conference in DC next weekend about "Why Christians Should Support Israel." This event is purely for political reasons, but they will try to connect spiritual things to it as well. What do you guys think?

It's not what 'we' said about this issue, it's what Jesus said. Matthew 21:43 makes it clear as glass that Israel was toast--and Jesus said it has become a desolate house because God has nothing to do with Israel anymore. Therefore, what others have said about this issue has been trumped by Jesus and I know that Jesus did not lie!

Actually, the present Israel is very dangerious to the real truth because of so many people who call themselves a Christian mistakenly believe what Paul wrote about all of Isrial being saved is bogus and serously flawed. The Jews lost their way of worship because of war and have never re-established this way, but are right now attempting to do this. The way I see it, is that the Jews are one of the 7 blaspheming mouths/heads and this is the one that was wounded but will some day become healed and because of this the whole world will follow after the first beast of Rev. 13--the ONE World Order. Take it or leave it, but this is MY opinion.

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

It would be the assembly of those who love Messiah and follow God's instructions.

So then, is this assembly the Israel of the flesh or of the spirit?

[Gerr]

Gerry: So then, is this assembly the Israel of the flesh or of the spirit?

Ron: It would be the remnant of literal Israel (actual descendants of Jacob) along with the Gentile believers who are grafted in among them.

The spiritual grafted into the literal Israel of the flesh? Impossible!!! The graft will not take! "Flesh & blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God!" "That which is of the flesh is flesh, and that which is of the spirit is spirit!" Literal Israel has no life of its own; it's an unproductive tree. To what were Abel, Enoch, Noah, and other pre-Israelite believers grafted to?

[Ron Amnsn]

So then, is this assembly the Israel of the flesh or of the spirit?

Originally Posted By: Ron Amnsn

It would be the remnant of literal Israel (actual descendants of Jacob) along with the Gentile believers who are grafted in among them.

The spiritual grafted into the literal Israel of the flesh? Impossible!!! The graft will not take!