|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 14, 2010 15:52:40 GMT -5
Thanks for your replies, everyone. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing. I'm just trying to get it all sorted out!
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 14, 2010 16:56:24 GMT -5
Hi Bev, Sorry, but I disagree! It seems inference that "world" refers to the house of Israel presents a problem, such as... Matthew 16:26 for what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world and lose, and lose his own soul?... John 18:36...My kingdom is not of this word... Acts 17:31...He will judge the world in righteousness. Note... Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the "world," and the diminishing of the them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness? 15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the "world," what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead. It seem to me if "world" refer to Israel, none Israelites will be eliminated from many promises pertaining to the kingdom. The Sower~ I think you may have shifted contexts here. Wasn't Bev's initial point concerning that which was contained in the Gospels? There is no question that Christ's ministry was to the house of Israel and the bulk of his parables were directed to Israel. (Maybe even all of them but this I have not confirmed...) As for Mt 16:26 and John 18:36, I see no reason to change that viewpoint especially if related to the OC. Paul had gained the whole OC but it was just dung. Jesus' kingdom would not be an OC kingdom but a NC kingdom - at least that is how I see it... And let's print out all of Acts 17:31... Acts 17:31 - Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Hopefully, you are not still looking for that appointed day to come like the futurists...judgement did come upon the Jews, did it not? Now, I think those two verses in Romans 11 could very well be a different matter. The point being that the kosmos meant "orderly system" which would be determined by the context, whether it be Jewish or Gentile. Don't forget Paul is now bringing in the topic of the Gentiles. Previously, the vast bulk of kosmos usage did refer to the Jew. I haven't gone through every occurrence in the Gospels, but I am fairly certain that the kosmos reflected the OC people and system. Would I bet my mortgage on it? Absolutely!! Cause you can have my mortgage; just let me keep the house...  My favorite "kosmos" verse is 1 Peter 3:3. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Jan 14, 2010 18:06:43 GMT -5
Hi Mellontes, I don't think I shifted context, but if so, I apologize! No, I'm not looking for that appointed day, like the futurist. I believe it occurred the first century. I don't disagree that Paul's "kosmos" sometimes meant an "orderly system, but Paul did not write the gospels and if Bev meant the vast majority of the gospels "world" refer to Israel, that seem to eliminate the Gentiles from many of the kingdom promises. The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by bryan729 on Jan 28, 2010 22:12:36 GMT -5
Interesting topic, I browsed through the whole thread. It's way cool that we are on different levels of learning, and that we can learn from each other.  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Dec 2, 2010 5:50:40 GMT -5
I have just read through this thread. I tried to stay with comments about "The World." My thinking for some time has been that the phrase, "before the foundation of the world," referred to "before the establishment of Israel," rather than "before creation." I do recognise that the word "world" does often refer to Israel, but not all the time. For example, in this statement, "Jesus died for the sins of the whole world," if it only refers to Israel, since the Israel of God is no longer in existence, if Jesus only died for the sins of all Israel, then no gentile of any age would have the hope of eternal life.  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 3, 2010 13:45:51 GMT -5
I have just read through this thread. I tried to stay with comments about "The World." My thinking for some time has been that the phrase, "before the foundation of the world," referred to "before the establishment of Israel," rather than "before creation." I do recognise that the word "world" does often refer to Israel, but not all the time. For example, in this statement, "Jesus died for the sins of the whole world," if it only refers to Israel, since the Israel of God is no longer in existence, if Jesus only died for the sins of all Israel, then no gentile of any age would have the hope of eternal life. This morning I read Ezekiel 37. It talks about being born again of the Spirit: (Ezekiel 37:14 NASB) "I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life, and I will place you on your own land. Then you will know that I, the LORD, have spoken and done it," declares the LORD.'" Of resurrection: Ezekiel 37:12-13 NASB (12) "Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people; and I will bring you into the land of Israel. (13) "Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people. Of the two becoming one people: (Ezekiel 37:19 NASB) say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will put them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand."' That the Messiah will be their exalted King forever: Ezekiel 37:24-25 NASB (24) "My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. (25) "They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons' sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. And that God will make an everlasting covenant with them and dwell in their midst forever: Ezekiel 37:26-28 NASB (26) "I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. (27) "My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their God, and they will be My people. (28) "And the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever."'" This is the gospel! And it is specifically about the Israel of God. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Dec 5, 2010 4:24:22 GMT -5
Bev, Are you saying the Gospel was only for Israel?  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 5, 2010 17:26:08 GMT -5
Bev, Are you saying the Gospel was only for Israel? Well, not outrightly. The gospel makes the blessings and promises of God available to everyone, but it is by being grafted in to Israel. In that respect, "Israel" is still the focus. I put Israel in quotation marks because I don't mean geographical Israel nor the country Israel nor Israel according to the flesh. I mean spiritual Israel, in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, who have been circumcised in heart. (These are just thoughts, ideas. I'm not trying to prove or debate anything here.) |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Dec 5, 2010 20:28:19 GMT -5
In that case, Bev, I agree with your statements.  |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 13, 2010 13:09:00 GMT -5
The "world" indeed refers to the house of Israel, that is, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, the native born and the foreigner, the religious and the secular.
It was not the Gentiles that were grafted into the olive tree as branches but the uncircumcised, the foreigners and the secularized of the house of Israel.
The circumcised of Israel were the natural branches. The uncircumcised and foreigners of Israel were the branches that were grafted into the tree. The Gentiles are the enduring FRUIT which all the branches produce.
The distinction between the branches and the fruit must be maintained.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 13, 2010 20:08:04 GMT -5
The "world" indeed refers to the house of Israel, that is, the circumcised and the uncircumcised, the native born and the foreigner, the religious and the secular. It was not the Gentiles that were grafted into the olive tree as branches but the uncircumcised, the foreigners and the secularized of the house of Israel. The circumcised of Israel were the natural branches. The uncircumcised and foreigners of Israel were the branches that were grafted into the tree. The Gentiles are the enduring FRUIT which all the branches produce. The distinction between the branches and the fruit must be maintained. Roo But in Romans 11:12-13, Paul writes that he is addressing the Gentiles. I have heard argument that the "Gentiles" are what you described above as the uncircumcised and foreigners. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 14, 2010 12:51:15 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
The word "ethnos" simply means "nations" without any reference to non Israelites. It can be shown that the "nations" that were grafted in as branches were indeed Israelites that had been outside the covenant.
If all are branches, natural or grafted in, then who is the fruit? The branches must bear fruit. I submit that the Gentiles were the fruit from the branches.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 14, 2010 13:06:11 GMT -5
Bev wrote: The word "ethnos" simply means "nations" without any reference to non Israelites. It can be shown that the "nations" that were grafted in as branches were indeed Israelites that had been outside the covenant. If all are branches, natural or grafted in, then who is the fruit? The branches must bear fruit. I submit that the Gentiles were the fruit from the branches. Roo It would help me if you provided scripture references for Gentiles being fruit. But now, it's Tuesday and the doorbell just rang. Time for cards! |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 14, 2010 18:48:29 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
It is to be inferred from Israel's appointed office a priests of God. They were to be priests to the nations outside the covenant. Then there is the fact that the Bride of Christ which is the New Jerusalem has only the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on the gates. Gentiles are not a part of the city's structure but are those who walk in and out through the gates (Rev. 21-22).
Branches must produce fruit. If all are branches, then who is the fruit?
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 14, 2010 22:11:55 GMT -5
Bev wrote: It is to be inferred from Israel's appointed office a priests of God. They were to be priests to the nations outside the covenant. Then there is the fact that the Bride of Christ which is the New Jerusalem has only the names of the twelve tribes of Israel on the gates. Gentiles are not a part of the city's structure but are those who walk in and out through the gates (Rev. 21-22). Branches must produce fruit. If all are branches, then who is the fruit? Roo Why does the fruit have to be a who? In Matthew 7 and 12, Jesus describes fruit as good and evil words, thoughts, and deeds. The thoughts and deeds that come out of the heart (Matthew 15:18-19) are the fruit. Bad fruit is produced by a "root of bitterness," an impure heart. In Luke 3, John the Baptist talks of bearing fruit and when asked for specifics, he describes acts of righteousness. We all know what the fruit of the Spirit it (Galatians 5:22-23), which are listed in comparison to the deeds of the flesh. The context of John 15, where Jesus says, ""I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing" (verse 5) is that of obedience. John 15:8-10 NASB (8) "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. (9) "Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. (10) "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. John 13:35 NASB (35) "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." There are people who are referred to as "first fruits," but that is not the same topic. I'm just trying to figure out the basis for you saying that "The Gentiles are the enduring FRUIT which all the branches produce." |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 15, 2010 14:13:46 GMT -5
Bev wrote:
What is the fruit of the Wife's womb? Answer: Children (Isaiah 54:5, 13).
Israel as Christ's Wife: To bear children (gentiles)
Israel as branches on the olive tree: To bear gentile believers
There is more than one kind of fruit. Notice that Jews are called God's "firstfruit." So people are also called "fruit" in scripture. Your suggestion that all believers are branches in the olive tree is the same as saying that all believers are stones in the walls of the city. If all believers are stones in the walls of the city, then the city can have no inhabitants for all are stones in the walls. But John clearly saw the "nations of them that are saved" walking in and out of the city. They are not a part of the walls and so are not a part of the structure itself. Yet they are saved.
The city is the Wife of Christ. If all believers are members of the Wife, then who will be her children? She must bear children.
Israel is useless as the temple if all believers are stones in the temple. The temple must have worshipers. Likewise the olive tree is fruitless if all believers are the branches. The branches must produce the fruit of men.
The womb of Christ's Wife is barren if she does not give her Husband children. She must bear children. The children of the Wife is not the Wife. The city is a ghost town if all believers are stones in the walls. The city must have inhabitants which it cannot if all believers a stones in the structure.
God built the temple to have worshipers. He planted the olive tree to produce fruit on its branches. He (Christ) took Israel as His wife so she could bear children. He built the city built to have inhabitants.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 15, 2010 14:56:07 GMT -5
I will not outright disagree, but there is something not ringing right. It feels too literal, too forced.
Why is it necessary for the marriage to have children? The primary purpose for children was to have heirs. Christ requires no heirs, as he is King forever.
In Ephesians 3:6, Paul wrote that "the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,"
Romans 8:16-17 - The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
Jesus is our brother, not our father.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Dec 16, 2010 9:24:29 GMT -5
Bev wrote: What is the fruit of the Wife's womb? Answer: Children (Isaiah 54:5, 13). Israel as Christ's Wife: To bear children (gentiles) Israel as branches on the olive tree: To bear gentile believers There is more than one kind of fruit. Notice that Jews are called God's "first fruit." So people are also called "fruit" in scripture. Your suggestion that all believers are branches in the olive tree is the same as saying that all believers are stones in the walls of the city. If all believers are stones in the walls of the city, then the city can have no inhabitants for all are stones in the walls. But John clearly saw the "nations of them that are saved" walking in and out of the city. They are not a part of the walls and so are not a part of the structure itself. Yet they are saved. The city is the Wife of Christ. If all believers are members of the Wife, then who will be her children? She must bear children. Israel is useless as the temple if all believers are stones in the temple. The temple must have worshipers. Likewise the olive tree is fruitless if all believers are the branches. The branches must produce the fruit of men. The womb of Christ's Wife is barren if she does not give her Husband children. She must bear children. The children of the Wife is not the Wife. The city is a ghost town if all believers are stones in the walls. The city must have inhabitants which it cannot if all believers a stones in the structure. God built the temple to have worshipers. He planted the olive tree to produce fruit on its branches. He (Christ) took Israel as His wife so she could bear children. He built the city built to have inhabitants. Roo You know Roo, I think you have something there. I will have to give it more thought, but I think it has possibilities. There are Scriptures that state that Christ came for his own, i.e., Israel. But was Israel alone to be the bride? That is interesting. I have to add, if Israel alone is the bride, then it was not necessary for the apostles to go thoughout all the world (Earth, globe), to preach the gospel before the end, as spoken of in Matthew 24. All they had to do is go thoughout all Israel. And that makes sense. But then, how do you explain all of Peter's and Paul's journeys in to Gentile lands? Were they simply reaching out to the "lost sheep" of Israel? And was it the lost sheep of Israel that Jesus said, "other sheep I have, not of this fold"? The next question I have. What about the Gentiles that became Christians before the marriage of the lamb? |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 16, 2010 18:17:49 GMT -5
Didymus wrote: Israel was alone to be the Bride. Israel was God's (Christ's) Wife under the oc. They had to go throughout all the regions and seek out the Jews. Paul said, "To the Jew FIRST and also to the Greek." After they had reached all the Jews of their generation in all geographical areas and all the remnant of them had become saved, then they could go to non-Israelites. When the captain of a sinking ship orders the women and children to be gathered FIRST he does not mean that men may be gathered simultaneously with the women and the children. The women and children are ALL gathered first. The Israelites were the FIRSTfruits (first pickings) of God's creatures (James 1:1, 18). They went only into the areas of Gentile lands where Jews lived. Peter recounted Jesus' Galilean ministry and indicated that He went to Gentile lands only where the Jews lived (Acts 10). It would be like a Chinese leader coming to American cities and going only to "Chinatown." Gentiles were justified on the basis of the law of God in the revelation in nature. They were not justified by the gospel because the apostles could not preach the gospel to them until ALL Israel had heard it. Their mandate was "to the Jew first." Gentiles could not become "christians" until the "Jew first" mandate had been completed. But they could be justified by their obedience to the revelation God gave them in the meantime. God (Christ) ordained His Wife to bear children for Him. The children of the Wife are not the Wife.I will be away for a few days. Please don't harass me while I am gone.  Roo |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 16, 2010 22:28:17 GMT -5
The Son married his Father's wife? That's interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Dec 17, 2010 11:01:42 GMT -5
The issue with having both Olive Trees being Israel is that it doesn't make sense in light of Paul's conclusion. In verse 26 Paul claims "And so all Israel will be saved". That "And so" is "and in this way/manner". What Paul is illustrating here, and the whole purpose behind the illustrations, is how God will save all Israel.
I have looked at this passage from so many angles and the only one that makes sense to me is where Paul redefines Israel based on belief in Christ. The super quick summary is that "Israel" was once defined by Jacob; you were of Israel if you were "in" Jacob (the root that gave 'life' to the tree) by ancestry.
But when Jesus came, He became the "root" by which the tree received its support, and thus the branches were then required to be "in" Him through belief. Those who were of the old root, but did not then remain in the new root, were broken off. Other branches were then grafted in simply through belief, and unbelief will result in being broken off.
So the illustration, as I see it, shows how Israel had been redefined by Christ to only include those of belief, and if Israel, the Israel of God, consists solely of those who believe in Him, then all Israel is indeed saved and is being saved.
This makes sense of statements like "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel" in Romans 9:6, and Ephesians 2 which describes how the blood of Christ made us "fellow citizens" of Israel.
It also reconciles other (seemingly contradictory) statements that tell us that only a remnant of Israel will be saved (Romans 9:27). Only those of Jacob which believe, the remnant, will be saved, yet everyone who believes, constituting all the 'Israel' of God and His Christ, will be saved.
|
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 17, 2010 11:18:38 GMT -5
The Son married his Father's wife? That's interesting. Your reasoning is circular. You assume that the name Jehovah or God always refers to the Father. The Father was never called Israel's Husband. Jehovah- Goel was Israel's Husband (Isaiah 44:6). The word "Goel" means Kinsman-Redeemer. Christ is both Israel's Kinsman and Redeemer. The Father is neither. Did the Father give His Wife to Christ in the new covenant? Or was Christ ALWAYS Israel's Husband? This is Christianity 101.Roo |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 17, 2010 11:24:29 GMT -5
Morris wrote:
Yes the Israel of God consisted only of those who believed in Jesus but only those who were Israelites. The word "Israel" was redefined as those who were natural descendants of Israel who also believed as opposed to those who were natural descendants of Israel alone.
Gentiles were not of the Israel of God.
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Dec 17, 2010 11:39:23 GMT -5
Gentiles were not of the Israel of God. Correct, they were not. But we have been made such through belief in Christ. This is exactly the point in Ephesians 2. You are correct in some sense. The cultivated tree, after the unbelieving branches were broken off, would be the remnant. Then other branches were grafted in because of belief. What would be the difference between unbelieving branches on the cultivated tree and those from the wild tree? Plus, the conclusion makes no sense if both trees are Israel. |
|
|
|
Post by kangaroojack on Dec 17, 2010 12:59:23 GMT -5
Morris wrote:
Ephesians 2 does not refer to the Gentiles. It refers to the uncircumcised of Israel. The Greek word "ethnos" simply means "nations" without any reference to non-Israelites.
Note verse 17 which says that Christ came and preached peace to them. Christ did not go to and preach to the Gentiles. He was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Therefore, the "Uncircumcision" in Ephesians 2 is not the Gentiles but the uncircumcised of Israel who had been cast out of the covenant but had been brought in again.
Paul was not speaking about two trees. The "wild" tree was the olive tree before it was cultivated.
If you choose to reply please start a new thread in the debates section. I would like to debate one on one with you about this.
Thanks,
Roo
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Dec 17, 2010 16:24:38 GMT -5
|
|
