the Great Tribulation

[Randy Kluth]

If i failed by showing you the Truth, then the LORD Jesus Christ failed by speaking the Truth.

Perhaps it went over your head and you need to dwell on the Truth of His Word...........

@Randy Kluth says: "But what God has cast aside He can restore...and will."
@David in NJ says: i AGREE with you Randy = 100% Truth = Romans 11:13-27

For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them.
For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

David, I was just saying that you appeared to be asking if I had heard of some movement in the Church or some theological truth called "Foundation Truth." It certainly did go over my head--not because it was too complex, but rather, because I lacked information as to what you were suggesting.

So, what did you mean by "Foundation Truth?"

 

[Randy Kluth]

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation. 16 Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God.

This is *not* explicit doctrine! This can be taken a number of ways. Explicit doctrine can only be taken one way.

What you're saying doesn't line up with what Paul said. He didn't say anything about untrue/unfaithful and true/faithful Israelites. He said "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". Clearly, Paul has two different Israels in mind here.

I don't at all see Paul having "in mind" "two Israel's." I see two kinds of Israelis--good and bad, spiritual and unspiritual. Christ will later separate them. But they remain the same "Israel."

I never said that being cut off from national Israel made someone no longer an Israelite.

You said that those who are carnal in Israel are distinct from a "2nd Israel." The implication is that a supposed "2nd Israel" is different from a physical Israelite, or non-ethnic.

But we're not talking about "two Israels," but rather, about two different *kinds* of Israelis, good and bad, spiritual and carnal.

 

[Timtofly]

I have no idea where you get this?

It doesn't sound likely to me. I don't see this in the Scriptures at all. But there are a number of speculations about what the Millennium will be. And I don't blame you for coming up with your own opinion on this. What happens in the present age is most important to us.

I see this all fulfilled in the time of Christ's 1st Coming. He finished Israel's transgression by forcing them to make a decision about him. He made an end of their sin by condemning them to Roman destruction. He provided eternal redemption for them based not on their righteousness but on his own righteousness. When Israel turns to him they'll be saved.

I Think you're conflating Israel's turn back to righteousness with immortality and glorification. I agree that there will be new things in the Millennium that appear to be supernatural. But I just think the world will reach an advanced stage of blessing, and not immortality.

Since these things are matters of speculation I'm not sure much can be proven one way or another?

The Atonement was physically over when Messiah was cut off, but humans are still in a state of sin and death, in case you had not noticed, and Israel is not the perfect nation leading the rest of the world in everlasting righteousness.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, I won't retract it because I've explained it as an example of lack of tact and yet understood properly represents what I think. As I said, my use of the word "fabrication" did not mean an "intentional lie," and words mean what they mean as the user meant to use them.

So, you like to create your own definitions for words. Makes it quite difficult to have a discussion with you in that case. But, you obviously don't care about that.

When I say I lacked tact, I was admitting I sometimes lack sensitivity as to how others may understand use of the term. But now that I've explained it, I have to wonder why you double down on your complaint? I've already told you I'm not using "fabrication" as a reference to "intentional deceit."

I don't understand why you think you can create definitions for words that don't even exist. That you won't find in any dictionary. You baffle me, Randy.

Again, a "fabrication," as I use the term, does not mean "intentional dishonesty," but rather, something invented more out of common sense, using Scripture references, than relying on explicit doctrinal statements in the Scriptures.

Yet, there are no definitions for that word which mean that. If you are going to just make up new definitions for words it just makes it almost impossible to have a normal discussion with you. We have to waste a bunch of time clarifying what you mean because you make up your own definitions for words. I don't get it.

If I'm wrong you should be able to point to an explicit doctrinal statement stating that there are 2 distinct "Israel's" and not just 2 different *kinds* of Israelis?

What is the difference between 2 distinct Israels and two different kinds of Israels. Either way, it's 2 different Israels. It seems like you often add a lot of unnecessary confusion to these discussions and I just don't understand that at all.

Instead, you rely upon an assumed meaning for "spiritual Israel" that distinguishes it from "unspiritual Israel," when this is only expressing 2 different qualities of the exact same entity!

No, it is not! Nowhere in Romans 9:6-8 does Paul say that in order to be part of spiritual Israel one must also be part of physical Israel. He says just the opposite of that! He says that being part of physical Israel has nothing to do with being part of spiritual Israel.

Carnal Israelites may be different from spiritual Israelites, and they may be separated in the future. But they will always be an "Israelite." All physical or ethnic Israelites will always be "Israelites," whether carnal or spiritual.

Is that what Paul is saying in Romans 9:6-8, though? Not at all. He said "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.". If he was only referring to one Israel here, as you seem to believe, then how does this statement make any sense? What is your understanding of the Israel he is talking about here? From what I can tell from what you've said, you think he's only referring to the nation of Israel here and referring to two subsets of people from the nation of Israel? Is that correct? If so, how can you make sense of what he said?

Clearly, all who are descended from the nation of Israel are part of the nation of Israel since that is only based on being a physical descendant. So, he didn't say not all who are physically descended from the nation of Israel are part of the nation of Israel. That wouldn't be true because even unbelievers are part of the nation of Israel since that is only dependent on being a physical descendant. So, how do you explain what he said without seeing that he was referring to two separate Israels?

As I told you, "spiritual Jew" or "spiritual Israelite" would refer to a Jew or to an Israelite who happens to be spiritual.

Where does scripture teach this? When I read passages like Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:6-8 they indicate that being a spiritual Jew or spiritual Israelite has NOTHING to do with being a physical Jew or physical Israelite. That couldn't be more clear when you see Paul saying things like "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly", "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring".

So, where are you getting the idea that a spiritual Jew or spiritual Israelite must also be a physical Jew or physical Israelite? Certainly not from Paul.

I did not say this!

It came across that way because of your poor choice of words like "fabrication". That's not my fault.

Walter Martin used to say, "God does not lisp. He is able to deliver truth clearly so that it is not misunderstood. This is the nature of fundamental truths of the Christian faith. Certain truths in the Bible attain to the level of doctrinal truth, and determine your orthodoxy as a Christian.

Yet, you obviously are unable to express your beliefs clearly, so what does that say about your doctrine?

But, this does not take into account 1 Corinthians 2:9-16 where Paul says that scripture must be spiritually discerned. Whether you want to believe it or not, it's not always just spelled out for us. Something does not need to be spelled out in order to be doctrinal truth. God expects us to be able to discern certain doctrinal truths without explicitly spelling them out for us.

Yes, it's an invention. I used the word. I know how I intended to use it.

Yes, in a way that no one else does. Nothing confusing about that. Ugh.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

You've missed an awful lot of Scriptures, brother! A lot of biblical history, and a lot of biblical prophecy, concerned the salvation of national Israel from her enemies!!

I'm talking about the salvation of souls and the forgiveness of sins, bro! Those are individual things. How could you not see that is what I was talking about? In no way, shape or form did I even hint at the idea that I was talking about being saved in a physical sense from being killed.

Yes, it's your tone that's caused you to get upset over my use of the word "fabrication." So I'm trying to persuade you to use less insulting rhetoric. Then we may read less hostility into each other's words.

Are you not aware of how everyone else in the world defines the word "fabrication"? The definition of the word is "an invention, a lie". That was insulting as it gets. How can you blame me for getting upset at that and taking it to mean how it is defined in a dictionary? Now I know that you made up your own definition. So be it. I'm not upset about that, I'm just confused as to why you would do that.

I concur.

Great. It's nice to concur once in awhile after all of our disconcurring. I think I just made up a word there.

The apostles and the Scriptures are the authority. And I said that if we are to make a doctrine out of Scriptural truth we need doctrinal statements from the Scriptures--not just truths that have to be organized to fit our assumed "truths."

That's what you have decided to believe, but I disagree since Paul indicated that scripture must be spiritually discerned. So, sometimes things are clearly spelled out for us in a straightforward manner and sometimes they are not. But, in the times that they are not we can still clearly see what is being taught with the help of the Holy Spirit. With that said, I personally believe that Romans 9:6-8 is very straightforward in how it differentiates national Israel from spiritual Israel. It may not use those terms explicitly, but I believe the concept is very clearly there.

Paul was not discounting Jewish ethnicity when he spoke of both spiritual and unspiritual Israelites. He was saying the unfaithful were to be cast out as rogue--not identified as a separate category of "Israelite."

What exactly are you talking about here? Which scriptures? You can't be talking about Romans 9:6-8 since he said things there like "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". He was clearly speaking of a people group (God's children/Abraham's children) in that passage that were not part of that people group because of being physical descendants. In my view, another way to refer to that people group who are spiritually the children of God and of Abraham is Spiritual Israel. Being a physical descendant of Israel or Abraham is not a requirement for being part of that people group. Only being a spiritual child of God and of Abraham is required. And, based on Galatians 3:26-29, that includes all Jew and Gentile believers.

There is no "2nd Israel!" One may say there is a spiritual Israel and a carnal Israel, but this is not saying there are 2 different Israel's.

This is our main point of contention. As long as we disagree on this, then we're going to disagree on most of the rest of it as well. I am fully convinced that there is a second Israel, so we are likely to never agree on this. So be it. We can agree to disagree respectfully.

I may say there are 2 kinds of students in a classroom, 1 kind are good students and the other kind are lousy students. But they do not become 2 distinct classes. Rather, they are just 2 different kinds of students in the same class.

There are good and bad Israelites. But they are not separated into "2 Israel's." They are both in the same classification: "Israel."

Yet, that does not line up with Paul's statement that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". You are acting as if he said "not all who are descended from Israel are good Israelites", but that is not at all what he said. Intead, he said that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel".

If we use your analogy, it would be like saying "not all the students in the classroom are students" and then trying to say that it's talking about 2 different kinds of students in the classroom. Is that how that statement reads? No, that statement would seem to suggest that somehow not all of the students in the classroom are actually students, which obviously makes no sense. The only way it could possibly make sense is if there were somehow two different definitions for the word "students" where some could be students by one definintion of the word and at the same time not be students based on a different definition of the word. I wish I could think of a better analogy than that, but I can't right now. Hopefully, you see my point, anyway (whether you agree with it or not).

Israel has always had good and bad people and they've all been called "Israel." So "untrue Israel" has been often misinterpreted to mean "invalid Israel," as if a "bad Israelite" can suddenly become a "non-Israelite" or a "separate Israel."

Can't be done. They are all the same "Israel," both good and bad included in the same category. The fact Paul distinguishes one group as belonging in the Church and the other has being disqualified from the Church does not mean any of them stop being "Israel!"

How does what you're saying here line up with Paul saying "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel"? You seem to be saying that all who are descended from Israel are Israel even though some of them are good and some are bad. But, Paul said NOT all who are descended from Israel are Israel. So, that strongly comes across as him saying that not all from Israel #1 are part of Israel #2. Yet, you somehow deny that he was talking about two Israels even though it is worded that way.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This is *not* explicit doctrine! This can be taken a number of ways. Explicit doctrine can only be taken one way.

I believe it is explicit doctrine and you are definitely not the one who decides for me what I believe is explicit or not. Regardless of that, Paul taught that scripture must be spiritually discerned by way of the Holy Spirit revealing the meaning of it to us. Especially the deeper things like what we're discussing here. See 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. So, you can claim that something can only be a doctrine if it's explicitly stated if you want, but that doesn't even line up with what Paul himself taught about scripture.

I don't at all see Paul having "in mind" "two Israel's." I see two kinds of Israelis--good and bad, spiritual and unspiritual. Christ will later separate them. But they remain the same "Israel."

That doesn't line up with his statement that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". I've already explained why in a different post that I assume you will read, so I'm not going to explain it again here.

You said that those who are carnal in Israel are distinct from a "2nd Israel." The implication is that a supposed "2nd Israel" is different from a physical Israelite, or non-ethnic.

I'm not saying that a physical Israelite can't be part of the 2nd Israel, if that's what you're saying. Otherwise, I don't know what you're saying.

But we're not talking about "two Israels," but rather, about two different *kinds* of Israelis, good and bad, spiritual and carnal.

Paul didn't talk about that and I'm talking about what Paul talked about.

 

[Timtofly]

God will restore Israel, just not the fake Israel; those who call themselves jews and the nation - Israel. They face punishment and only a remnant will survive.
The true House of Israel was exiled for their sins circa 700 BC, by Assyria. God does know who and where they are; Amos 9:9
THEY are the people who Jesus came to save. Matthew 15:24
THEY are the peoples who have accepted Christianity and they will live in the very palace where their ancestors were exiled from. Hosea 2:23, Romans 9:24-26. In the new nation of Beulah; Isaiah 62:1-5

A restoration would change them from being fake, back to reality.

It is fake Israel that needs to be restored.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Where does scripture teach that "God temporarily cast Israel aside"? Nowhere.

You are directly contradicting what Paul taught in scripture.

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

Randy says: "God temporarily cast Israel aside".

Paul says: "Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself...".

Who should I believe? You or Paul? It's not a hard question to answer.

SI, do you not realize that Paul was saying this precisely because God had indeed temporarily set aside Israel? He was assuring others that Israel's being set aside was not permanent!

Israel appeared to have been cast aside as God's People when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. Jesus himself had said that the Kingdom of God, which had been associated with Israel, would be taken from them.

This means Israel had been cast aside. So Paul was assuring them that this was not permanent, that they had not been permanently rejected. A lot of Christians have failed to understand Paul's abbreviated language--too many words and the point is lost.

Paul was not saying that Israel had not be cast aside at all. He was saying the obvious, that even though Israel had been cast aside they had not been cast aside *permanently.* This was so obvious that Paul did not need to do a dissertation on what the difference is between permanent and temporary!

Now, if you want to say that God temporarily cast unbelieving Israelites aside rather than saying He cast the entire nation of Israel aside, then you would be lined up with what Paul taught, which was that unbelieving Israelites of his day were cut off temporarily because of their unbelief, but were later given the opportunity to be grafted in again if they believed. That's why Paul said regarding the Israelites of his day who had been blinded and cut off "I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them." (Romans 11:13-14).

Not at all. Paul did not specify "unbelieving Israelites" as those cast aside because he was speaking in general terms. He did not indicate this supposed division between the "two Israel's." The entire nation had been caught up, largely, in rebellion such that it could be generally said that Israel was cast aside.

It went without saying that even though the innocent minority would suffer along with the entire nation they were not the targets of God's wrath. The whole nation suffered the reality of God casting it aside. God was subjecting the whole nation to this temporary destiny not because of the failure of a righteous remnant, but rather, because he was dealing with the whole nation as one, rather than separate it into two entities.

Here in the US my country has gone through a lot of judgments from the Lord, and it is not because of righteous Christians living within it who have failed--they didn't fail. Rather, so many Americans have been caught up in sin that God could not bless the country as a whole without dealing with a major rebellion against Him. So the righteous have had to suffer along with the rest of the country even though they were not responsible for bringing upon the US these judgments.

It was the same with Israel. God cast aside the whole nation not because of the Christians who lived within Israel. Rather, sin had become so dominant in Israel that God could no longer bless the nation as a whole. He could not just isolate a few "bad eggs." He had to judge the whole nation, the whole society.

The righteous among the Jewish people were innocent casualties of God's war against the large majority of unrighteous in Israel. They were victims, as such, of "friendly fire." They were "collateral damage."

Your apparent sense that the "unbelieving in Israel" were judged, whereas the believers in Israel were not, fails to recognize that God judges societies and nations, and not just individuals. This is how the Scripture presents the idea of national judgment--not just in individual terms but more, in national terms.

 

[Behold]

We certainly have different views in this regard...

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

New Living Translation
There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

English Standard Version
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Berean Standard Bible
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Berean Literal Bible
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

King James Bible
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

New King James Version
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

New American Standard Bible
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I believe it is explicit doctrine and you are definitely not the one who decides for me what I believe is explicit or not. Regardless of that, Paul taught that scripture must be spiritually discerned by way of the Holy Spirit revealing the meaning of it to us. Especially the deeper things like what we're discussing here. See 1 Corinthians 2:9-16. So, you can claim that something can only be a doctrine if it's explicitly stated if you want, but that doesn't even line up with what Paul himself taught about scripture.

We clearly disagree! Paul said this...
1 Cor 14.6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

Paul required clarity in certain messages, such as in a matter of urgency, like war. Doctrinal truth is an urgent matter because without it the Church is confused and divided. We may disagree on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but as far as the big picture this would have little significance. It is entirely different to argue about whether we should "go to war" with anti-Trinitarians!

That doesn't line up with his statement that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel". I've already explained why in a different post that I assume you will read, so I'm not going to explain it again here.

Same here. We've both explained our differences. Your "two Israel" idea does not exist in Scriptures, from my perspective. Israel is always a single nation, even though it consists of both good and bad characters. Clearly, in the final judgment these will be separated. But for now, all Jews are viewed as part of a single nation.

There is no "Spiritual Israel" defined as the International Church. "Spiritual Israel" would be Jews who believe in Christ, ie Messianic Jews. The fact Christians believe in the same God and Messiah as Messianic Jews does not make all Christians "Spiritual Israel," or a "2nd Israel."

I'm not saying that a physical Israelite can't be part of the 2nd Israel, if that's what you're saying. Otherwise, I don't know what you're saying.

See above. You separate "Israel" into "two Israel's," on the basis that there are carnal Jews and spiritual Jews. And then you take the spiritual Jews and include with them Christians of all ethnicities to create a supposedly "2nd Israel." That is not the language of Scripture, in my view.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

This passage is often used by Replacement Theologians to claim that there is no longer any ethnicity in the Church. But that would mean there are no genders in the Church, as well, which is patently absurd. How can Christians have a "Christian marriage" if there is no longer any gender differences?

So clearly, people are misreading Paul's sense that things like gender differences and race differences are no longer important for Christians in terms of who gets Saved! Paul is speaking shorthand for saying these things are unimportant with the obvious qualification that he is referring to God's impartiality with respect to Salvation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I'm talking about the salvation of souls and the forgiveness of sins, bro! Those are individual things. How could you not see that is what I was talking about? In no way, shape or form did I even hint at the idea that I was talking about being saved in a physical sense from being killed.

Yes, salvation of the soul is individual, and yet the temporal salvation of nations is societal, and not just individual. A whole lot of moral/spiritual issues in the Bible are societal--in fact much of the 10 Commandments is societal and even national in scope.

So when you differentiate and isolate salvation of the individual from the salvation of the nation from its enemies you are confusing biblical language. Both are referenced, even though they are indeed different. Particularly, when we're defining "Israel" we should avoid such confusion of the two senses of "salvation."

Recently I posted a message explaining how I view the biblical language of "salvation," as it concerns both spiritual salvation and national salvation. One is a matter of obtaining eternal life. The other is concerned with political salvation of a state. Both elements are clearly delineated in Scriptures, and should not be ignored.

Are you not aware of how everyone else in the world defines the word "fabrication"?

Being unwilling to accept what I say I mean indicates you want to insert into my use of the word an evil motive. And that is like having an "evil eye." You should avoid this.

Matt 6.22 The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light.

Set your mind on things above. Think on healthy matters. Do all things to edify.

Our differences do not have to give rise to arguments over words. We should assume the best until proven differently. I've already told you what I meant by "fabrication," which I acknowledged was easily susceptible to misunderstanding. My use of the word can be flexibly applied, and I explained how I meant to apply it. Are you trying to insist I meant something I'm saying I don't mean?

Without explanation the word was, I admit, a poor choice. But I've *already added the explanation!!* If you can't move on from this you can't move on at all!

 

[Randy Kluth]

The Atonement was physically over when Messiah was cut off, but humans are still in a state of sin and death, in case you had not noticed, and Israel is not the perfect nation leading the rest of the world in everlasting righteousness.

Yes, the world remains afflicted by sin, despite Christ's atonement. The promise offered by the Prophets is that Israel will ultimately succeed in bringing the Gospel to the world, and will themselves recover from their national failure.

None of this requires that Israel become perfect in the Millennium, in my opinion. Israel's success in bringing the Gospel to the world has already taken place through their spawning the International Church, which is indeed reaching the entire world.

Israel's national recovery has not yet been completed however. That will take place only after Christ's Return, in my opinion. As I said, these things are speculative.

 

[Davy]

i do not follow or believe in "Replacement Theology"!!!

i DO BELIEVE every word spoken by God = Matthew 4:4

The LORD replaced unbelieving Jews with a NEW Nation = Matthew 21:42-46

Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you(unbelieving Jews)
and given to a nation(Born-Again Blood Washed NEW Covenant NATION) bearing the fruits of it. And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them. But when they sought to lay hands on Him, they feared the multitudes, because they took Him for a prophet.

That's right!

Yet there's still more to it than just that, and many won't realize it until the day of Lord Jesus' future return. Here's some bullet points:

• God used the scattered 12 tribes to the West to fulfill His promise to Jacob that his seed would become "a company of nations" per Genesis 35. Jacob then transferred that prophecy to Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48 about the "multitude of nations."
• The Western Christian nations was the result of that prophecy fulfilled. Thus God used them to take The Gospel to the Gentiles.
• Both believing scattered Israelites and believing Gentiles together, became the start of Christ's Church in the West historically.
• Then ambassadors in Christ from the Christian West took The Gospel to other nations, even as it still is today.
• It's these facts of Christian history that the unbelieving Jews dislike and use the term 'Replacement Theology' to try and counter it. Many believing Jews have followed the Orthodox unbelieving Jews in that.

 

[Keraz]

When I read passages like Romans 2:28-29 and Romans 9:6-8 they indicate that being a spiritual Jew or spiritual Israelite has NOTHING to do with being a physical Jew or physical Israelite. That couldn't be more clear when you see Paul saying things like "A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly", "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring".

The whole truth and nothing but the truth!

Israel's national recovery has not yet been completed however. That will take place only after Christ's Return, in my opinion. As I said, these things are speculative.

Your problem in a nutshell.
When Christ Returns, only the faithful, righteous people will be left alive. All the rest will be dead, esp those who belong to the synagogue of Satan. Isaiah 22:14

 

[David in NJ]

That's right!

Yet there's still more to it than just that, and many won't realize it until the day of Lord Jesus' future return. Here's some bullet points:

• God used the scattered 12 tribes to the West to fulfill His promise to Jacob that his seed would become "a company of nations" per Genesis 35. Jacob then transferred that prophecy to Ephraim and Manasseh in Genesis 48 about the "multitude of nations."
• The Western Christian nations was the result of that prophecy fulfilled. Thus God used them to take The Gospel to the Gentiles.
• Both believing scattered Israelites and believing Gentiles together, became the start of Christ's Church in the West historically.
• Then ambassadors in Christ from the Christian West took The Gospel to other nations, even as it still is today.
• It's these facts of Christian history that the unbelieving Jews dislike and use the term 'Replacement Theology' to try and counter it. Many believing Jews have followed the Orthodox unbelieving Jews in that.

Thank You Davy,
This is new to me so i must digest it (takes time).
I do see how you see God keeping His Own throughout earthbound Historical Time within the Gospel.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

SI, do you not realize that Paul was saying this precisely because God had indeed temporarily set aside Israel? He was assuring others that Israel's being set aside was not permanent!

It seems that you are not reading the text carefully. Paul specifically said "Did God reject his people? By no means!". And you are saying He did. And the evidence Paul used to prove that He didn't was that there was a remnant of believers at that time. God's people are believers, Randy. Why do you give so much significance to one's nationality when it comes to being part of God's people when God does not? It's about faith, not nationality. Scripture teaches that repeatedly. There is neither Jew nor Gentile. God is no respecter of persons.

Israel appeared to have been cast aside as God's People when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple. Jesus himself had said that the Kingdom of God, which had been associated with Israel, would be taken from them.

Taken only from the unbelievers, not the believers. You seem to ignore the existence of any Israelite believers at that time.

This means Israel had been cast aside.

No, it means unbelievers like the Pharisees and scribes had been cast aside. Not believers like Paul and the apostles. We're talking about the difference between being in God's kingdom and not being in God's kingdom here. This is a salvation issue and salvation is for individuals by grace through faith.

So Paul was assuring them that this was not permanent, that they had not been permanently rejected.

I agree that those who were rejected were not rejected permanantly. That's why Paul said this:

Romans 11:13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

This shows that the Israelite unbelievers who were cast aside and blinded were later given the opportunity to be saved because Paul himself was hoping to help lead some of them to salvation.

A lot of Christians have failed to understand Paul's abbreviated language--too many words and the point is lost.

Paul was not saying that Israel had not be cast aside at all. He was saying the obvious, that even though Israel had been cast aside they had not been cast aside *permanently.* This was so obvious that Paul did not need to do a dissertation on what the difference is between permanent and temporary!

The difference in our views is that you see the entire nation of Israel as having been cast aside and I see that unbelieving Israelites were cast aside while believing Israelites were not. As long as we continue to have these different perspectives on what Paul was talking about, we will not agree on what he was teaching in Romans 11.

Not at all. Paul did not specify "unbelieving Israelites" as those cast aside because he was speaking in general terms. He did not indicate this supposed division between the "two Israel's."

He most certainly did differentiate between unbelieving and believing Israelites. That couldn't be more clear.

Romans 11:5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6 And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened,

Here, we can very clearly see that Paul differentiated between Israelites of that time by referring to "a remnant chosen by grace" as "the elect" and the rest as "the others" who did not obtain what they "sought so earnestly" for. Were they all cast aside? Of course not! It was only the others who were not part of the remnant of believers that were cast aside. You can't possibly understand what Paul was saying if you ignore how he differentiated between believing and unbelieving Israelites.

The entire nation had been caught up, largely, in rebellion such that it could be generally said that Israel was cast aside.

That's what you say, but it's not what scripture says. Scripture says "the others" (unbelieving Israelites) were cast aside, but not "the elect" (believing Israelites).

 

[Randy Kluth]

It seems that you are not reading the text carefully. Paul specifically said "Did God reject his people? By no means!". And you are saying He did.

I'm not going to beat this horse to death, so let me explain one more time. Paul is using "shorthand." What he really means is that the act of Israel's continuing judgment and rejection by God does not mean they have been rejected *forever.*

Paul assumes we have brains and recognize that Israel has been rejected many times! He is talking about total abandonment by God, and complete nullification of promises God made to Abraham. God has *not* abandoned those promises, nor rejected Israel in that regard. Paul is drawing upon the larger context of God's eternal promises made to Abraham!

And the evidence Paul used to prove that He didn't was that there was a remnant of believers at that time. God's people are believers, Randy. Why do you give so much significance to one's nationality when it comes to being part of God's people when God does not? It's about faith, not nationality. Scripture teaches that repeatedly. There is neither Jew nor Gentile. God is no respecter of persons.

If one is going to talk about redemption, individual or national, at all, it must include not just those who have already repented but also those who have still yet to repent!

No, it means unbelievers like the Pharisees and scribes had been cast aside. Not believers like Paul and the apostles. We're talking about the difference between being in God's kingdom and not being in God's kingdom here. This is a salvation issue and salvation is for individuals by grace through faith.

Those who have been permanently set aside are those who commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit or who have made a permanent decision to rebel against God's word. You don't throw that characterization against an entire nation unless you're a bigot or antisemitic.

The difference in our views is that you see the entire nation of Israel as having been cast aside and I see that unbelieving Israelites were cast aside while believing Israelites were not. As long as we continue to have these different perspectives on what Paul was talking about, we will not agree on what he was teaching in Romans 11.

Then we won't agree. Casting aside an entire nation is not the same thing as rejecting those within the nation who were faithful and anachronistic. This is a generalization, and protesters who did not engage in Antichristianity were unfortunate casualties of national judgment.

And national judgment was a total national rejection. It was a rejection of a social structure based on corruption, and not focused on individual dissenters who were Christians. Rejection of a corrupt *system* or of a corrupt *society* is not rejection of every individual within that society who stands against the status quo.

OT judgment, such as the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities, were characterized as national judgments, despite the fact good prophets like Jeremiah were caught up in the tribulation. God recognized the difference between the idolatrous and the faithful. And yet He still pushed forward aggressively with respect to *national judgment* against Israel!

He most certainly did differentiate between unbelieving and believing Israelites. That couldn't be more clear.

See above. National Judgments are not focused on individual status--just national fate. I'm not saying there is no difference that is recognized by God between the faithful and the faithless.

Regardless of our differences, I hope you have a good day.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Regardless of our differences, I hope you have a good day.

I hope the same for you. I didn't respond to anything else you said because I would have just ended up repeating what I had said in the post you were responding to. You think Paul's focus was on the nation of Israel and I think it was on individual faith (or the lack thereof). So be it.

 

[Keraz]

I hope the same for you. I didn't respond to anything else you said because I would have just ended up repeating what I had said in the post you were responding to. You think Paul's focus was on the nation of Israel and I think it was on individual faith (or the lack thereof). So be it.

RandyK makes the mistake of thinking all Israel is only the Israeli people. Who are a racial mixture of peoples, who just claim, without any real proof; to be Israel. A false claim, which is sadly supported by many Christians, who have to have the Jews on earth while they have the incredible belief of going to heaven.

Paul settles this issue in Galatians 3:26-29 and Galatians 6:14-16 It is every faithful Christian from every tribe, race, nation and language, who are the true Israelites of God.