The 144,000

[Ron Amnsn]

1 minute ago, 8thdaypriest said:

He is a "priest after the order of Melchizedek - who was a priest and a king on the earth.  If Jesus is a priest of this order, then He must be a priest and a king ON EARTH.

Do you think the author of Hebrews got it wrong when he said, "Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law" (Hebrews 8:4) ?

[8thdaypriest]

24 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If the original Sinai covenant ended when Messiah died, why does Revelation 11:19 tell us that the ark of that covenant is seen in the Temple in heaven when the seventh trumpet sounds?

Because the TERMS are the same. 

Why would Jesus want different things in a new "wife". 

The Mount Sinai covenant - written on stones - makes no mention of priesthood or sacrifices.  It just describes behaviors, and some thoughts (like don't covet). 

This is the Law that Jesus will write on our hearts.  This covenant describes US, and how we will behave, once changed into His image. 

[Ron Amnsn]

3 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Besides we who believe "never die" in the eyes of God.   

So, when I die my wife will not be free to marry another man?

[8thdaypriest]

25 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

If the original Sinai covenant ended when Messiah died, why does Hebrews 8:13 tell us that the covenant was still valid when Hebrews was written, which was several decades after Messiah was resurrected?

 

NIV  Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."

Because their were still believers offering animal sacrifices, and living in a manner consistent with all the requirements of an OBSOLETE covenant, does not mean we today are obligated to do likewise. 

In the same manner, the "New" Covenant will not be fully realized until redeemed Israel has been returned to "the land" and is living in peace.  

We - believers - ARE MARRIED to Christ by the New Covenant, but like the ancient marriage covenant, the marriage will not be consummated until after the "wedding feast",.

The period of time from the day the "marriage covenant" was made - to the consummation, might be a year or more.  Joseph and Mary were in that period of betrothal, but Mary was regarded legally as "married" to Joseph.   So we are regarded legally - as "married" to Jesus Christ.   He is preparing a home for us - His "bride".

[8thdaypriest]

12 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

So, when I die my wife will not be free to marry another man?

Paul said, "she does not commit adultery, though she marry another man."   So your wife CAN "marry another man" - IF you die. 

Concerning the congregation of Yahweh, the "other" man IS Jesus Christ.  He IS the new man we "marry". 

You are mixing the physical with what it symbolizes, concerning Christ and His church, (though I have wondered IF Lazarus and his wife had to marry again  .  He WAS obviously DEAD.)

Romans 7:2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another-- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (NKJ)

The pre-incarnate Son of God was husband #1.  The resurrected, glorified Son of God is husband #2.  At least according to Paul.  New marriage.  New Covenant.  Jesus said, "This is the New Covenant in my blood. "   The only way there could BE a "New Covenant" is for the "husband" of the first covenant to DIE.  Hence "in - or through - My blood.

[8thdaypriest]

Gotta go.  Husband home.  lol

[Ron Amnsn]

4 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The only way there could BE a "New Covenant" is for the "husband" of the first covenant to DIE.  Hence "in - or through - My blood.

You seem to be assuming that God's covenants are sequential and exclusive-- so that only one covenant happens at a time.   The evidence in Scripture shows that God's covenants are cumulative-- so that Abraham's covenant adds to Noah's covenant; and the Sinai covenant adds to Noah's and Abraham's covenant; and for Phinehas' descendants his covenant is added to all the preceding covenants.  So it seems the New (or Renewed) covenant would be added to all the preceding covenants, since God keeps his covenants.

The reference to blood refers to the blood of a sacrifice that was sprinkled on the people at Sinai to confirm the covenant, and to the blood of Messiah, the better sacrifice, that confirms the renewed covenant.

[LifeHiscost]

2 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Paul said, "she does not commit adultery, though she marry another man."   So your wife CAN "marry another man" - IF you die. 

Concerning the congregation of Yahweh, the "other" man IS Jesus Christ.  He IS the new man we "marry". 

You are mixing the physical with what it symbolizes, concerning Christ and His church, (though I have wondered IF Lazarus and his wife had to marry again  .  He WAS obviously DEAD.)

Romans 7:2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. 4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another-- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God." (NKJ)

The pre-incarnate Son of God was husband #1.  The resurrected, glorified Son of God is husband #2.  At least according to Paul.  New marriage.  New Covenant.  Jesus said, "This is the New Covenant in my blood. "   The only way there could BE a "New Covenant" is for the "husband" of the first covenant to DIE.  Hence "in - or through - My blood.

And as far as beyond the grave is concerned, for the saved, 

…24Jesus said to them, “Aren’t you mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven....Mark 12

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[JoeMo]

15 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

The members of the Messianic congregation I attended, treated me like a member of the mixed multitude, following them to the kingdom.  Definitely second class. 

That is not the case with the Messianic Jewish congregation that I occasionally worship with.  Everyone is invited to partake in their communion.  Everyone is invited to their Pesach.  Anyone can attend their Sabbath and feast day services.  Anyone who goes through their classroom instruction can become a member.  They sometimes have Gentile speakers.  They rent their facility to a Sunday keeping Christian church.  They also are very heavy into formal liturgy - even more so than Catholics.  As beautiful as I find the ceremony ,I can't do it week after week.  They DO believe that the 144,000 will be made up of believing ethnic Israelites.  "All of Israel will be saved" refers to the living, believing Israelites alive at the second coming.

[8thdaypriest]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

That is not the case with the Messianic Jewish congregation that I occasionally worship with.  Everyone is invited to partake in their communion.  Everyone is invited to their Pesach.  Anyone can attend their Sabbath and feast day services.  Anyone who goes through their classroom instruction can become a member.  They sometimes have Gentile speakers.  They rent their facility to a Sunday keeping Christian church.  They also are very heavy into formal liturgy - even more so than Catholics.  As beautiful as I find the ceremony ,I can't do it week after week.  They DO believe that the 144,000 will be made up of believing ethnic Israelites.  "All of Israel will be saved" refers to the living, believing Israelites alive at the second coming.

Just remove the word "ethnic", and that's what I believe.

[8thdaypriest]

16 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

You seem to be assuming that God's covenants are sequential and exclusive-- so that only one covenant happens at a time.   The evidence in Scripture shows that God's covenants are cumulative-- so that Abraham's covenant adds to Noah's covenant; and the Sinai covenant adds to Noah's and Abraham's covenant; and for Phinehas' descendants his covenant is added to all the preceding covenants.  So it seems the New (or Renewed) covenant would be added to all the preceding covenants, since God keeps his covenants.

NIV  Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."

Words like "obsolete" and "disappear" don't make it sound like the New Covenant is added on to the Sinai Covenant.  

The Sinai Covenant - written on stones - is REPLACED BY the New Covenant, written on the hearts of those who have believed. 

[Ron Amnsn]

2 hours ago, JoeMo said:

That is not the case with the Messianic Jewish congregation that I occasionally worship with.  Everyone is invited to partake in their communion.  Everyone is invited to their Pesach.  Anyone can attend their Sabbath and feast day services.  Anyone who goes through their classroom instruction can become a member.  They sometimes have Gentile speakers.  They rent their facility to a Sunday keeping Christian church.

I've visited both kinds of Messianic congregations-- those where Gentiles are welcome to become full members, and those where Gentiles are second-class citizens unless they go through a full conversion  process approved by Orthodox Jews.  I think the difference between the two depends primarily on whether or not the leader of the congregation grew up in Orthodox Judaism. It makes sense that the leaders who grew up in Orthodox Judaism would want to create a congregation that would attract their Jewish relatives and friends to Jesus, so the distinctions between Jews and Gentiles that are present in Orthodox Judaism are maintained in those Messianic congregations.  Visiting this kind of congregation gives us, I think, a better understanding of the kind of Jewish/Gentile issues the apostle Paul was dealing with in his epistles.  It seems not much has changed.

[Ron Amnsn]

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Paul said, "she does not commit adultery, though she marry another man."   So your wife CAN "marry another man" - IF you die. 

But you just said,

20 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Besides we who believe "never die" in the eyes of God.   

So according to what you said, in God's eyes my wife would never be free marry another man because in God's eyes I would never die.

19 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

You are mixing the physical with what it symbolizes, concerning Christ and His church,

So, there are limits to what can be legitimately deduced about the physical from metaphorical or symbolic statements.  What criteria do you use to determine what those limits are?  Do you accept any and all conclusions drawn from metaphorical statements in the Bible as long as those conclusions agree with your own theories?  If so, that seems like a recipe for becoming self-deceived by one's own private interpretations.  What happens when the conclusions you draw from metaphorical statements contradict direct non-symbolic statements made directly by God through his prophets?  Do you set aside the direct non-symbolic statements of God's Word in favor of metaphorical interpretations you like better?  That's the trap a lot of Christians have been taught to walk into.  So when God says directly in Jeremiah, that he will not reject Israel or Judah while day and night continue, Christians have been taught to believe that such parts of God's Word are invalid because of some metaphorical interpretation that abuses the metaphor. 

Christians cherry-pick the parts of Paul's metaphor of the olive tree in Romans 11 and ignore the clear statement in the metaphor that some branches are "natural branches", even if they have been "cut off", while other branches are "wild", and that the cut off non-Gentile natural branches still have something that makes them more able to be grafted-in than a wild branch.  Even though Paul says the non-Gentile "natural branches" have a grafting-in advantage provided by their previous attachment to "their own" olive tree, people continue to assert the nonsense that there is no difference between the non-Gentile natural branches and the wild Gentile branches.

[JoeMo]

5 hours ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Just remove the word "ethnic", and that's what I believe

Ditto.

[8thdaypriest]

5 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

But you just said,

So according to what you said, in God's eyes my wife would never be free marry another man because in God's eyes I would never die.

So, there are limits to what can be legitimately deduced about the physical from metaphorical or symbolic statements.  What criteria do you use to determine what those limits are?  Do you accept any and all conclusions drawn from metaphorical statements in the Bible as long as those conclusions agree with your own theories?  If so, that seems like a recipe for becoming self-deceived by one's own private interpretations.  What happens when the conclusions you draw from metaphorical statements contradict direct non-symbolic statements made directly by God through his prophets?  Do you set aside the direct non-symbolic statements of God's Word in favor of metaphorical interpretations you like better?  That's the trap a lot of Christians have been taught to walk into.  So when God says directly in Jeremiah, that he will not reject Israel or Judah while day and night continue, Christians have been taught to believe that such parts of God's Word are invalid because of some metaphorical interpretation that abuses the metaphor. 

Christians cherry-pick the parts of Paul's metaphor of the olive tree in Romans 11 and ignore the clear statement in the metaphor that some branches are "natural branches", even if they have been "cut off", while other branches are "wild", and that the cut off non-Gentile natural branches still have something that makes them more able to be grafted-in than a wild branch.  Even though Paul says the non-Gentile "natural branches" have a grafting-in advantage provided by their previous attachment to "their own" olive tree, people continue to assert the nonsense that there is no difference between the non-Gentile natural branches and the wild Gentile branches.

So when God says directly in Jeremiah, that he will not reject Israel or Judah while day and night continue

IMO, God has NOT rejected "Israel" or "Judah" - IF by "Israel" you MEAN those who believe in and seek to obey Yahweh, AND are led by His Spirit.  The rulers who called for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, were ethnic Israelites.  But - they were not "led by His Spirit". 

I have no problem with the "natural branches" - those raised as part of cultural, historic Israel - being closer to/ or more easily grafted in.  They have a greater understanding of the history.  They already keep more of the commandments.  Their culture allows them to keep the commandments more easily (without pressure from their social support group) than those from Sunday keeping cultures, or non-religious cultural backgrounds, or even Muslim culture.   On the other hand, their is massive cultural opposition against any Jew who comes to believe in Jesus Christ AS Messiah.  Such belief separates them from their social support group. 

In my neck of the woods - small town East Texas - social support groups like family, friends, work associates, clubs, your kids sporting events, etc. etc. -  are extremely important!!  Some folks choose to keep their new faith/beliefs a secret, rather than risk loosing their friends and family, and place in Southern society.  I personally know three women who have told me, "I'm with you Rachel.  I agree, what you've said makes a lot more sense.  I just can't get my family upset right now" (or ever).  One told me she would remain a "closet conditionalist". 

I can agree. There IS a DIFFERENCE concerning the difficulty involved in coming to believe in Jesus Christ, in making the commitment to serve Christ, in bearing witness to your faith in Jesus Christ - as the Son of God, and the only way to God the Father.   But the range of difficulty varies from individual to individual, and from culture to culture.  

Is it easier for a Jew to become part of a congregation praising Jesus as Messiah?  Or is it easier for someone from a Sunday keeping church, whose entire extended family attends that church, to suddenly decide that the 7th Day Sabbath IS part of the New Covenant?   Seems to me, both individuals face great difficulty.  

 

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/16/2017 at 9:32 AM, 8thdaypriest said:

NIV  Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear."

Words like "obsolete" and "disappear" don't make it sound like the New Covenant is added on to the Sinai Covenant.

The Sinai Covenant - written on stones - is REPLACED BY the New Covenant, written on the hearts of those who have believed.

You're saying something different here than what the Bible says.  You're saying that the covenant is written on the hearts.  However, Jeremiah and Hebrews both say that God writes his Law or Instructions on the hearts. 

The word "obsolete" is an English word translated from a Greek word that has other meanings.  The translators chose the meaning that matched their theology.  The words translated as "obsolete" literally mean "be made old". The author of Hebrews uses the same word in Hebrews 1:11 where it quotes Isaiah 51:6 speaking of the foundations of the earth which are obviously not obsolete but absolutely necessary to our existence.  Our modern culture is obsessed with "new" things and is quick to abandon old things as obsolete or out-of-date, but other cultures value old things (as in old wine and the age-old foundations that will be rebuilt).   God's covenants with Noah and Abraham are much older than the Sinai covenant yet they are still valid now.

The phrase "near disappearing" is another instance showing that the writers of the New Testament thought the return of Jesus was imminent as shown in 1 Cor 7:31 "For the present form of this world is passing away." and 1John 2:17 "And the world is passing away ..."

There are a number of things that continue from the original covenant into the renewed covenant:

• YHWH.  It is the same God that is the initiator and primary party to both covenants.
• God's part of the covenant, "I am YHWH your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt."
• Israel -- the other party to both covenants.  The Sinai covenant was made with the descendants of Jacob and the mixed multitude that had come with Israel out of Egypt.  The renewed covenant is made with the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah", which specifically refer to the two literal parts of the descendants of Jacob who were temporarily divided until the two houses are reunited.
• The Ark of the Covenant  (see Revelation 11:19)
• The  covenant document -- the Ten Words (erroneously known in English as the ten commandments). 
• God's Instructions or Law that will be written on the hearts.
• The definition for "iniquity" and "sins", which will be forgiven.

The promise of the new covenant makes it clear that the new covenant has not yet been implemented because the Israelites have brothers and neighbors that do not know the Lord.

I suppose it could be okay to speculate that the new covenant replaces the Sinai covenant, if you happen to be correct about that.  But since Scripture doesn't actually say that anywhere, it seems like a rather presumptuous assumption.

[Ron Amnsn]

On 8/16/2017 at 6:29 PM, 8thdaypriest said:

I have no problem with the "natural branches" - those raised as part of cultural, historic Israel - being closer to/ or more easily grafted in.

It appears that you are comfortable with cultural or social reasons, but not accepting of what the Bible teaches about the Israelite natural branches having an advantage in God's eyes because God designates them as "natural branches" as opposed to "wild branches" like the Gentiles.  In Romans 9:1-5 the apostle Paul says in the present tense about the disbelieving Israelites, "to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises."  The Bible doesn't say anything like that about disbelieving Gentiles.

After the Gentile "wild branches" become grafted-in to Israel among the natural branches, then there should be no difference between Israelite and Gentile believers because we are one in Messiah.

There isn't anywhere in the Bible where it talks about a "church" that separates itself from the literal descendants of Jacob.  In fact the Greek word "ekklesia" (which is erroneously translated as "church" in English Bibles) was already used (for nearly 200 years) to refer to the assembly of Israelites at Mt. Sinai in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) before the New Testament was written.

[Rahab]

new covenant:

in addition to what has been stated in Jer 31:33

Isa 42:1  Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. 
Isa 42:2  He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. 
Isa 42:3  A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. 
Isa 42:4  He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. 
Isa 42:5  Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: 
Isa 42:6  I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; 

this is such great news...where the old covenant failed as the people failed, this new covenant will not fail because it was Jesus given for a covenant!!!  

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/15/2017 at 5:30 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

Was that bill of divorce something YHWH forced on the northern kingdom, or something that the northern kingdom requested/demanded?  Was it an actual document written in stone by God's finger, or was it something mentioned metaphorically? 

Did God really have two wives simultaneously -- the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah?  If so, he wouldn't even qualify to be an elder in a congregation according to the New Testament.

I suppose if someone views marriage as some sort of bondage, the wife would be "freed" from a resurrected husband. What if the wife doesn't want to be freed?  Does the Law say that a resurrected husband is required to abandon his wife, or to remarry her? 

Considering that the death of Messiah was planned from the foundation of the world, it seems that God would have mentioned that the original Sinai covenant was only going to last until Messiah died, instead of making it sound like that covenant was going to endure "throughout the generations" of the Israelites.  Do we serve a God whose word can be trusted, or is he a shady used-car salesman who deceives those who enter into covenants with him? 

Which part of the Sanctuary services or annual feasts illustrates the termination of the covenant when the lamb (or other sacrifices) representing Messiah died?

Are you sure that Jesus is exactly equivalent to the YHWH who entered into the covenant with Israel, so that the death of Jesus is the same as the death of YHWH (the metaphorical husband of the covenant)?

What other promises, covenants, and agreements did YHWH get out of when Jesus died?

You ask a lot of questions, that you want to answer yourself.

[8thdaypriest]

13 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Was that bill of divorce something YHWH forced on the northern kingdom, or something that the northern kingdom requested/demanded?  Was it an actual document written in stone by God's finger, or was it something mentioned metaphorically? 

Yahweh promised that He would never break His covenant (Psalm 89:34). 

The Northern Tribes committed adultery.  They broke covenant!  For that sin (arrogantly and without repentance)  - the LORD gave them a "bill of divorcement". 

Hebrews 8:7-13  “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.  Because finding fault with them, He says:

        ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them,’ says the LORD.

        Notice that both Israel (the 10 Northern tribes) AND Judah (the 2 Southern tribes) are included in the words “I disregarded them” - a term often used for divorce.

Jeremiah 31:32 “‘the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.’”

Ezekiel 16:32  “You are an adulterous wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband.”

    Ezekiel 16:38  [Speaking of Jerusalem] “I will judge you as women who break wedlock or shed blood are judged; I will bring blood upon you in fury and jealousy.”

Jeremiah 3:8  “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also.”

    Isaiah 50:1 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Where is the certificate of your mother's divorce, whom I have put away? . . . And for your transgressions your mother has been put away.’”

    Hosea 2:2  “Bring charges against your mother, bring charges; For she is not My wife, nor am I her Husband!”

IF the LORD had divorced the remaining tribes, then Yeshua Messiah could not have been "born under the Law" (born under the Sinai Covenant). 

THAT is the only reason that the LORD did not divorce them also!   They had certainly committed adultery (idolatry). 

 

 

[8thdaypriest]

27 minutes ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Which part of the Sanctuary services or annual feasts illustrates the termination of the covenant when the lamb (or other sacrifices) representing Messiah died?

How about the complete destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and scattering of Israel to the 4 winds?  Would THAT "illustrate" a "termination" of anything? 

The complete scattering of the 10 Tribes resulted from the LORD's divorcing them, and removing His special protection from them. 

If the LORD wanted us to go up to Jerusalem for the Feasts and to offer animal sacrifices there, through an Aaronic priesthood, you would think that He would have restored the Temple and restored that priesthood.  So far - for almost 2000 years - it has NOT BEEN POSSIBLE.  That suggests - to me anyway - that those things are NOT ESSENTIAL to a relationship with God our Father, and Yeshua His Son. 

[8thdaypriest]

On 8/18/2017 at 10:28 PM, Ron Amnsn said:

It appears that you are comfortable with cultural or social reasons, but not accepting of what the Bible teaches about the Israelite natural branches having an advantage in God's eyes because God designates them as "natural branches" as opposed to "wild branches" like the Gentiles.  In Romans 9:1-5 the apostle Paul says in the present tense about the disbelieving Israelites, "to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises."  The Bible doesn't say anything like that about disbelieving Gentiles.

After the Gentile "wild branches" become grafted-in to Israel among the natural branches, then there should be no difference between Israelite and Gentile believers because we are one in Messiah.

There isn't anywhere in the Bible where it talks about a "church" that separates itself from the literal descendants of Jacob.  In fact the Greek word "ekklesia" (which is erroneously translated as "church" in English Bibles) was already used (for nearly 200 years) to refer to the assembly of Israelites at Mt. Sinai in the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) before the New Testament was written.

Ron, seriously - stop with the low-ball accusations.  "Not accepting what the Bible teaches". 

I do not always accept your interpretation of Bible passages.  

If you want to debate, do so in a respectful way. 

NAU  Romans 9:4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

Yes - God called Israel His son. 

Yes - God appeared to Israel, and they saw His glory.

Yes - God entered into a covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Israel.   Yes - God gave them His Law.  Yes - He instructed David in the building of the Temple.

And Yes - God made promises to Israel. 

BUT - descendants of Jacob who HEARD the Gospel, and did NOT come to believe in Jesus as the Christ, were "cut off" from Israel in the eyes of God.  

The promises are only REALIZED through Christ.  If they did not belong to Christ, then they would REALIZE no promises, regardless of their PAST HISTORY.  

(Romans 9:6-8)  "They are NOT all Israel who are of Israel".  "Those who are the children of the flesh, these are NOT the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed." 

It might have been easier for ethnic Hebrews to be "grafted in again" because of their knowledge of the Scriptures.  Then again - their rulers (both king and priests) were persecuting Jews who worshiped a RISEN Christ. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

I suppose if someone views marriage as some sort of bondage, the wife would be "freed" from a resurrected husband.

GRIEF!!  The freedom - is freedom to marry "another" husband. 

They were married to "the Law" and Paul said they were freed from THAT marriage by the death of Christ. 

This set them FREE to marry "another".

Romans 7:4 "that you may be married to another-- to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God."

She is not "freed from a resurrected husband".  She is free to marry a resurrected LORD. 

We can be married to "the Law" or we can be married to Christ. 

If we marry Christ, then HE will write His law into our hearts. 

Peter called the marriage (to the law) a "yoke" that no one could bear.  So bondage - yes.  Without the Spirit in their hearts it WAS "bondage". 

Paul called it "the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones" (2Co 3:7).   Doesn't sound like a happy marriage - does it?

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Did God really have two wives simultaneously -- the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah?  If so, he wouldn't even qualify to be an elder in a congregation according to the New Testament.

Neither would Abraham, or Jacob. 

The imagery of two wives comes from Jacob and his marriage to two sisters, who each had a handmaid.  Judah regarded the Northern tribes as their ancient mother Rachel once regarded Leah - as stealing her rightful place as the only legitimate wife of Jacob.  The tribes were divided ever since Jacob was deceived into marriage with Leah.  They are rejoined only in Messiah!

You KNOW all this Ron.  You are just using cheap shots, like throwing mud against a wall to see if anything sticks. 

[8thdaypriest]

1 hour ago, 8thdaypriest said:

Considering that the death of Messiah was planned from the foundation of the world, it seems that God would have mentioned that the original Sinai covenant was only going to last until Messiah died, instead of making it sound like that covenant was going to endure "throughout the generations" of the Israelites.  Do we serve a God whose word can be trusted, or is he a shady used-car salesman who deceives those who enter into covenants with him? 

The words of the Sinai Covenant "last" and "endure" - only as the principles embodied are written on the hearts of those who trust in Jesus.  

Those who believe in JESUS are "Israel" - not everyone who is a descendant of Jacob.  THESE are "the generations" of Israel who will endure forever.   And because they endure forever - the Covenant will endure forever, albeit in a new way (in the heart as opposed to just "written on stones").  

Unbelieving Jews today - may be "of Jacob"  but they are NOT "Israel" - NOT part of the living Tree - NOT drawing life from "the root".   The Sinai Covenant is NOT going to endure through generations of unbelieving Jews.