The Disciples' Message Forgotten

[Guest]

Ron, you have stated that you could show where the promises to Israel were unconditional, and would be fulfilled no matter what they did. Could you show me where this is found please?

Also, who do you believe this parable is referring to, if not the Jews?

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? Matt 21:33-40

Does this say that the husbandmen will remain in good standing, even though they killed the Son? I don't think so. It goes on to say:

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

[phkrause]

Excellent point/case RLH, I it

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, you have stated that you could show where the promises to Israel were unconditional, and would be fulfilled no matter what they did. Could you show me where this is found please?

Let's start with one that is conditional.

Jeremiah 33: 14-26

Here's part of it:

24 “Have you not observed what this people have spoken, saying, ‘The two families which the LORD chose, He has rejected them’? Thus they despise My people, no longer are they as a nation in their sight.

25 “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,

26 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.’ ”

The condition explicitly given in the prophecy is "If my covenant for day and night stand not." (The covenant for day and night can be found in the promises that God made with Noah and the animals in Genesis 8:22) So as long as day and night continue, we know that the covenant for day and night still stands and that God has not rejected the descendents of Jacob.

[Ron Amnsn]

If Jesus is the "righteous branch" spoken of in Jeremiah 33:15, then the prophecy in my previous post would be one of the prophecies that Jesus was referring to when he said,

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

[Ron Amnsn]

The next prophecy is found in Jeremiah 31:35-37. These verses follow immediately after the promise of the New Covenant that is quoted from Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8

35 Thus says the LORD,

Who gives the sun for light by day

And the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night,

Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar;

The LORD of hosts is His name:

36 “If this fixed order departs

From before Me,” declares the LORD,

“Then the offspring of Israel also will cease

From being a nation before Me forever.”

37 Thus says the LORD,

“If the heavens above can be measured

And the foundations of the earth searched out below,

Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel

For all that they have done,” declares the LORD.

The condition that God explicitly states would be necessary for Him to cast off the offspring of Israel is, "If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out below.", This condition has not yet been fulfilled even now, and it certainly hadn't happened by the time that Jesus died.

All the things that Israelites had done and all the things that Israelites would later do were no surprise to God. He knew. Yet God still gave his word that he would not cast them off except under conditions that are impossible to fulfill even now.

[Ron Amnsn]

The next prophecy is found in Ezekiel 36.

22 “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for My holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you went.

23 “I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD,” declares the Lord GOD, “when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight.

24 “For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land.

25 “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.

26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

28 “You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.

29 “Moreover, I will save you from all your uncleanness; and I will call for the grain and multiply it, and I will not bring a famine on you.

30 “I will multiply the fruit of the tree and the produce of the field, so that you will not receive again the disgrace of famine among the nations.

31 “Then you will remember your evil ways and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and your abominations.

32 “I am not doing this for your sake,” declares the Lord GOD, “let it be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel!”

33 ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “On the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places will be rebuilt.

34 “The desolate land will be cultivated instead of being a desolation in the sight of everyone who passes by.

35 “They will say, ‘This desolate land has become like the garden of Eden; and the waste, desolate and ruined cities are fortified and inhabited.’

36 “Then the nations that are left round about you will know that I, the LORD, have rebuilt the ruined places and planted that which was desolate; I, the LORD, have spoken and will do it.”

37 ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “This also I will let the house of Israel ask Me to do for them: I will increase their men like a flock.

38 “Like the flock for sacrifices, like the flock at Jerusalem during her appointed feasts, so will the waste cities be filled with flocks of men. Then they will know that I am the LORD.” ’ ”

[Ron Amnsn]

Also, who do you believe this parable is referring to, if not the Jews?

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

[Ted Oplinger]

Are not the Jews closer linked to God as a chosen people through Jesus than they are through Abraham and Moses?

Blessings,

[Guest]

Jesus was saying that the husbandmen would be replaced. The leadership of the Israelites had been changed by God several times previously. (ie. from King Saul to King David) Jesus was letting the people know that it was going to happen again.

No, the plan was for the Jews to take the gospel to the rest of the world, and they failed. They tried to keep it to themselves. The vineyard is the rest of the world, not the Jews.

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The text says a NATION, not the leadership. A nation is not just the leadership, it is the whole. America is a nation. The president and the congressmen and senators etc. are not the nation. We are the nation. The people. Same with Canada, same with Israel.

When they killed the Son of God, that ended their significance as a nation. If this meant God would only replace the leaders, as you say, then where are they? Who did He replace them with ?

There is nothing in scripture, or in 2000 years of history, to indicate that God has ever had anything else to do with the Jewish nation. Through a prophet, or in any other way.

For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. Rom 9:6,7

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Rom 2:28,29

These are the replacements.

[Ron Amnsn]

Are not the Jews closer linked to God as a chosen people through Jesus than they are through Abraham and Moses?

Which Scripture passages would you use to show that the Jews are linked to Jesus as a chosen people?

Christians tend to emphasize the passages that talk about the personal relationship available when an individual accepts Jesus as Lord. However there are passages that talk about Jesus and his link to the Israelites (and Jews) as the covenant people.

Here is one that was written decades after the death of Jesus:

49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,

50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”

51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,

52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (John 11:49-52)

It is apparent that the author of this passage did not believe that the nation had been rejected by God.

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Are not the Jews closer linked to God as a chosen people through Jesus than they are through Abraham and Moses?

Which Scripture passages would you use to show that the Jews are linked to Jesus as a chosen people?

Christians tend to emphasize the passages that talk about the personal relationship available when an individual accepts Jesus as Lord. However there are passages that talk about Jesus and his link to the Israelites (and Jews) as the covenant people.

Here is one that was written decades after the death of Jesus:

49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all,

50 nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.”

51 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,

52 and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. (John 11:49-52)

It is apparent that the author of this passage did not believe that the nation had been rejected by God.

The very same passages which show Mary, Christ's earthly human mother, is closer linked to Jesus in Redemption than she is by blood being His mother. Those verses apply to each and ever human being on earth, and not just to Gentile replacements for the Jews. How intimately are you connected to Christ, and how is that link maintained in Scripture?

Covenant status, according to Luke 22, simply means a people are far more responsible to God for Gospel outreach, than those who have not taken up that Covenant. It is not, and never has been, a designation of dominance and elitism over all others.

As a nation, Israel does not have the responsibility for spreading the Gospel any more. In rejecting Christ, they rejected participation as a nation in the work of God on earth. That is what Christ meant when speaking the parable of the vineyard. It is much like taking away the most important work in a company from the older, senior worker who slacks on the job, and giving those responsibilities to the new hire demonstrating the willingness to get the job done.

That does not mean Israel has been thrown away by God. Au contraire! Paul in Romans 11:1-25 Clearly builds the case Israel's rejection of Christ was neither total nor final - God clearly has a place and a role for the Jew in His people. Indeed, it is by God's providence the Jew as a culture and people have been kept intact for nearly 1900 years after Rome thoroughly disbanded the Jew to the 4 corners of the earth. Most displaced peoples disappear within 200-300 years after losing a homeland, either dying out, or being absorbed into another people. God, though, has kept Israel intact in spite of man's brutal attempts to exterminate the Jew over the last 1500 years. That anecdotal evidence leads me to conclude the Jewish people have an indispensable part in the very last movements of God's work on earth.

Blessings,

[Ron Amnsn]

No, the plan was for the Jews to take the gospel to the rest of the world, and they failed. They tried to keep it to themselves. The vineyard is the rest of the world, not the Jews.

It looks like you get your doctrines from other places than the Bible, but perhaps I have missed the pertinent passages. Would you please share the Bible passages on which you base the above assertions?

There is one thing, which is necessarily implied by your assertions above, with which I would tend to agree. For the Jews to have "failed" at taking the gospel to the world, it would have been necessary for them to have access to the full gospel before the New Testament was written and before Jesus was born. That would mean that the Christian doctrines which are based only on the New Testament (not found in the Old Testament) actually could not be a part of the true gospel, because the Jews couldn't have "failed" at sharing something that they didn't yet have. That means the man-made doctrine that claims that God rejected the Jews is not part of the gospel; also, the doctrine that claims that the Law of Moses and the sacrificial system were somehow rendered obsolete by the death of Jesus could not be part of the gospel. Jesus said that the Old Testament Scriptures testify of himself, and they do.

[Guest]

The gospel was preached in Genesis. Abraham knew what the gospel was, Jesus even said so. The whole purpose of the sanctuary service was to show the gospel.

The Jews were the ONLY ones who had full access to the gospel, and they turned it inward, instead of sharing it with the world.

John 8:56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Do you really believe that the gospel didn't exist until New Testament times?

[Guest]

Ron, even though our relationship is somewhat adversarial at this point, I am still glad to be able to talk to you. Being able to communicate with other Christians around the world, is something we tend to take for granted now.

[Ron Amnsn]

Do you really believe that the gospel didn't exist until New Testament times?

No. I don't think I said or implied that. Paul says that the Israelites heard the gospel. Other passages support that.

What I was saying, was that since the Old Testament contains the gospel, but doesn't contain the other doctrines that have somehow become attached to the gospel, we know that those other doctrines are not part of the gospel.

[Ron Amnsn]

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The text says a NATION, not the leadership. A nation is not just the leadership, it is the whole. America is a nation. The president and the congressmen and senators etc. are not the nation. We are the nation. The people. Same with Canada, same with Israel.

The verse does say "nation". It is translated from the Greek word ethnos, which is sometimes translated as "people" or "tribe" (both referring to a people group). Also, there is one place (at least) in the Bible were the word "nation" (ethnos in the LXX) is used to refer to individuals who would later father a nation, as Jacob and Esau did.

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb; And two peoples shall be separated from your body; And one people shall be stronger than the other; And the older shall serve the younger."

In Matthew 21:43 Jesus didn't explicitly identify which "nation" would be given the "kingdom of heaven" that was taken from the husbandmen in the parable, and the identity of that "nation" is not explicitly stated anywhere else in Scripture. So it may not be necessary for the followers of Jesus to even know who it is.

The other two Gospels that also contain the parable of the vineyard husbandmen (Mark 12:1-12 & Luke 20:9-19) do not record Jesus' statement after the parable about taking the kingdom from "you" and giving it to "a nation" that produces fruit. Apparently the authors of those Gospels did not consider that statement to be significant.

I understand that the identity of the "nation" in Matthew 21:43 could be important to those who want to have Biblical support for the man-made doctrine that claims God rejected the Jews as a nation. So let's take a few moments to look at who could be possible replacements for the wicked husbandmen.

The role of the husbandmen in Jesus' parable was to care for the vineyard that the landowner planted and protected and to give the landowner his share of the "fruit" that is produced. So we should expect the replacement husbandmen to fill that role.

It would be irresponsible to ignore the passage in Isaiah 5 which Jesus quoted from and then added to in telling his parable. In Isaiah 5, it identifies the expected "fruit" of the vineyard as justice and righteousness (verse 7). Isaiah 5:7 also identifies the vineyard itself as the house of Israel and the plants as the men of Judah. There were no husbandmen mentioned in Isaiah 5, that role was added by Jesus in his parable. According to Matthew 21:45, the chief priests and Pharisees correctly identified themselves as the wicked husbandmen in the parable.

So the clues we have gathered from the context tell us that in order to correctly identify the "nation" that will receive the kingdom we should be looking for a group (or individual) that cares for Israel and Judah and produces justice and righteousness.

In all three Gospel accounts of the parable of the vineyard husbandmen, Jesus follows the parable immediately with an OT quotation from Psalm 122:22-23, "The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief corner stone. This is the LORD’S doing; It is marvelous in our eyes." In Matthew's account this quotation comes between the parable of the vineyard husbandmen and the pronouncement that the kingdom would be taken from "you" and given to "a nation" producing the fruit of it. Is it possible that Jesus is telling us that "the stone" that becomes the chief corner stone is the same entity as the "nation" that will receive the kingdom? (We know from Acts 4:11 that the stone refers to Jesus the Messiah.)

I think there are enough prophecies concerning the Messiah that tell us that he will be given the leadership of Israel and Judah. One such prophecy was given to Mary by the angel before she conceived, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” (Luke 1:31-33)

Other possibilities for replacement husbandmen would include the disciples of Jesus, who Jesus promised will "sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28)

The Christian church would not qualify as a replacement husbandmen because after the first hundred years it failed to care for Israel and Judah, and did not produce justice or righteousness. When the landowner shows up to ask for his share, many Christians would reply, "Uhh... what vineyard? We heard that you had rejected the vineyard so we tore out the vines and planted soybeans."

Whatever interpretation we choose for the "nation", we must choose an interpretation for Matthew 21:43 that agrees with the rest of Scripture.

[LifeHiscost]

Are not the Jews closer linked to God as a chosen people through Jesus than they are through Abraham and Moses?

Blessings,

I would say yes , but not if they are selective in how God wishes to reach them.

"But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”"Luke 16:31 NKJV

God cares!

[phkrause]

Ron, here is how the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) translates that verse: Matthew 21:43 Therefore, I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to the kind of people that will produce its fruit!"

[Ron Amnsn]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Are not the Jews closer linked to God as a chosen people through Jesus than they are through Abraham and Moses?

I would say yes , but not if they are selective in how God wishes to reach them.

"But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”"Luke 16:31 NKJV

You write in riddles, LifeHiscost.

In what way do you think the Jews are being "selective" in how they hear?

In the verse you quoted, Jesus (through the character of Abraham in the parable) is telling us that we need to hear (which in Hebrew includes obedience) Moses and the prophets.

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron, here is how the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) translates that verse: Matthew 21:43 Therefore, I tell you that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to the kind of people that will produce its fruit!"

I think the Complete Jewish Bible has captured the most important element of what Jesus was saying in that verse.

The CJB gives good insights into the way the New Testament would have been understood in its original Jewish context. In just a few passages, I think the translator has stretched the meaning a bit. I agree with his intent (to show that the New Testament agrees with the Old Testament) but I think some of the details could use a bit more research.

The traditional Christian interpretation of this passage (that Jesus proclaimed that God was rejecting the Jews as a nation) violates the immediate context of the passage. If Jesus had actually been proclaiming that God was rejecting the Jews as a nation, the chief priests and Pharisees would have had nothing to fear from the common people. The common people would never have mistaken a person with that message as prophet of God because that message directly contradicts God's Word in Scripture. The chief priests and Pharisees could have easily turned such an anti-Scriptural and anti-Jewish proclamation against Jesus in the eyes of the people, and gained the people's support in stoning Jesus on the spot.

[Guest]

I guess if the Bible doesn't read like you want it to, it just needs more research. Your mind is made up, so you go ahead with your hair splitting, rather than except what it says. I think I'm through with this.

None of the translations you've shown say anything like: "Just the leadership will be replaced"

If you believe that, then answer my earlier question. Who did God replace them with? Where was the change in direction?

It simply didn't happen. That is a fact you should look at, but I doubt if you will.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

How about Isaiah 58? The Jews were following the ceremonial laws and God rebuked them through Isaiah for their lack of understanding of His requirements.

Where do you get the idea that the Jews were rebuked in Isaiah 58 for obedience to God's instructions?

[Ron Amnsn]

When they killed the Son of God, that ended their significance as a nation. If this meant God would only replace the leaders, as you say, then where are they? Who did He replace them with ?

Matthew 21:25 tells us that Jesus was speaking about the chief priests and Pharisees. We don't know the identity of all those men that Jesus said would be replaced, so we may not know the identity of the men who replaced them. Jesus didn't give a time frame for when the replacement would happen.

We do know that at the time of Jesus' birth there was at least one priest who was righteous in God's sight (Luke 1:6). It is likely that there were other younger priests who followed that example. Acts 6:7 tells us, "a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith." So God may have replaced the chief priests with righteous priests sometime before the Temple was destroyed four decades later.

When God took the priesthood away from Eli's family in the days of Samuel the prophet, God arranged for Eli and his descendents to die, so the priesthood passed to another family of Aaron's descendents. God may have done something similar to replace the chief priests and Pharisees in the first century AD.

Or perhaps the replacement of leadership started when the Temple was destroyed in AD 70 and would be completed during "the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (Acts 3:21)

[Ron Amnsn]

There is nothing in scripture, or in 2000 years of history, to indicate that God has ever had anything else to do with the Jewish nation. Through a prophet, or in any other way.

Did Jesus not prophecy that the Temple would be destroyed? Was it not destroyed by the armies of Titus in AD 70?

Have you not read in the covenant that God made with the Israelites how God would scatter the Israelites among the nations of the earth when they were disobedient? Has that not happened for the past 1900 years?

Have you not read in the early SDA publications the statements that say the Jews have been suffering the curses of the covenant since the death of Jesus? If the Jews have been suffering the curses of the covenant, then God has indeed had his hand in making that happen for the past 1900 years.

Have you not noticed the contradiction created by those historic SDA statements regarding the curses that the Jews have been suffering? If the curses of the covenant are still happening to the Jews, that means the covenant itself must still have validity. But on the other hand SDA doctrine teaches that God's covenant with the Jews is no longer valid. How could the Jews be suffering the curses of the covenant if that covenant is no longer valid? If God's covenant with the Israelites is no longer valid, then the curses of that covenant would have been extinguished along with the rest of the covenant.

[Gordon1]

God made everything, owns everything, owns everyone.

Breaking a deal has consequences, but doesn't imply a continued contract/relationship.