Posted on 09/21/2014 10:09:50 AM PDT by wmfights
Will Israel Continue as a Nation?
The point at issue. In previous discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant, it was shown that the term seed of Abraham had three distinct meanings as used in Scripture. It is used (1) of the natural seed of Abraham, limited in some contexts to the seed of Jacob or Israel; (2) it is used of the spiritual seed of Abraham within the natural seed—spiritual Israel; (3) it is used of those who are spiritual seed of Abraham but not natural descendants, i.e., Gentile believers. Premillenarians concede to amillenarians the existence of a spiritual seed of Abraham. The point at issue is that amillenarians insist that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled only through the spiritual seed of Abraham and that therefore Israel racially and nationally has no covenant promises.
The meaning of the term “Seed of Abraham.” The usual amillennial position is stated by Albertus Pieters in these words: “Whenever we meet with the argument that God made certain promises to the Jewish race, the above facts are pertinent. God never made any promise to any race at all, as a race. All His promises were to the continuing covenanted community, without regard to its racial constituents or to the personal ancestry of the individuals in it. Hence no proof that those whom the world now calls ‘the Jews’ are descended from Abraham, if it could be supplied (which it can not), would be of any avail to prove that they are entitled to the fulfillment of any divine promise whatsoever. Those promises were made to the covenanted group called ‘The Seed of Abraham,’ and to that community they must be fulfilled. What is needed is that one shall bring forward proof of his membership in that group.”1 all families of the earth be blessed.” Nothing should be plainer than that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob understood the term seed as referring to their physical lineage. While blessing is promised those outside the seed of Abraham if they believe as godly Abraham believed, the particular promises of a great posterity, of possession of the land, and being the channel of blessing to Gentiles is never given to any except the physical seed. Again it should be made clear that God is not undertaking to fulfill the promise to all the physical seed of Abraham, but through some of them, chosen as the line of the seed. While the line of the seed culminates in Christ, who fulfills much of the promise of blessing to the Gentiles, it is clear that all the twelve tribes not only Judah, were considered the seed of Abraham and in particular the seed of Israel.
While Pieters’ presentation of the amillenarian position accomplishes about all that could be asked for that viewpoint, it must be rejected as lacking any positive proof. The arguments, however cogently presented, do not prove the point at issue. The Scriptural use of the term seed of Abraham while it justifies the concept of a spiritual seed does not exclude the promises to the physical seed. The amillenarian arguments beg the question by assuming what they are trying to prove. The fact is that Pieters and most amillenarians seem to avoid the real issues and in their discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant do not deal with that aspect that concerns the physical seed.
The concluding point of Pieters, that the Jews have no racial continuity, is an illustration of the extremes to which amillenarians are forced to go to sustain their position. Certainly the world today is bearing witness to the continuing physical strain of Jewish blood, however contaminated by marriage with Gentiles. The Jews themselves acknowledge this physical lineage. Practically all Biblical scholars who are conservative acknowledge it whether premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial. Certainly the Scriptures continue the recognition of this people even after centuries of intermarriage with Gentiles. The Book of Revelation in its prophetic account of things future speaks of the twelve tribes being again identified by God. In modern history we have witnessed the creation of the political state of Israel in Palestine, the persecution of Jews as such in Europe, the continued teachings of orthodox Judaism as well as its reformed counterparts. Anyone in the face of such overwhelming evidence for recognition of the physical seed of Abraham in the world today who in effect denies them right and title to the name Israel is shutting his eyes to some very plain facts. One of the greatest of modern miracles has been the preservation of the identity of Israel as a race and nation, a fact which has been the stumbling stone for the amillennial denial of Israel’s future. To deny that Israel has a bona fide existence today is to ignore that which is plain to everyone else.
The term “Israel.” The millennial controversy over the meaning of the term seed of Abraham carries over into the term Israel. As a title given to Jacob, meaning prince of God, it has commonly been used to designate the physical descendants of Jacob. While amillenarians tend to deny that the seed of Abraham has any physical reference, as we have seen, they concede that the term Israel has some physical reference. The question at issue does not concern the Old Testament use of the term so much as it concerns the New Testament meaning of Israel.
Amillenarians characteristically do not agree among themselves on even the essentials of their theology, and their concept of Israel is a good illustration. The older and more familiar type of amillenarians, of which Calvin may be taken as a representative, holds that when Israel rejected Christ they lost their promises and that the New Testament church has become the inheritor of Israel’s covenants. The church of the New Testament, they hold, is Israel. Oswald Allis, for instance, is a staunch defender of Calvin’s viewpoint and goes so far as to label as extremists all who disagree with him on this point. He states: “Carrying to an almost unprecedented extreme that literalism which is characteristic of Millenarianism, they [the Brethren Movement] insisted that Israel must mean Israel, and that the kingdom promises in the Old Testament concern Israel and are to be fulfilled to Israel literally.”2 Allis is a little wild in this charge as will be made evident. The idea that Israel means Israel is not unprecedented, nor is it confined to the Brethren movement. It is held in its essentials by the postmillenarian Charles Hodge3 and by Professor William Hendriksen of Calvin Seminary, an avowed amillenarian.4 Allis seems unaware that he himself is the one out of step. The whole tendency of modern theology both conservative and liberal is toward the position of distinguishing rather than merging Biblical Judaism and Christianity.
The newer allennial approach to the meaning of the term Israel is to regard it as always being basically a reference to those physically Israel. They may regard them like Hendriksen as spiritual Israel or elect Israel down through the ages, or like the postmillenarian Charles Hodge as Israelites who become Christians—certainly one of the Biblical usages, but there is no longer much zeal to make the church the inheritor of all Israel’s promises.
There are a number of good reasons for this trend away from Calvin and his modern disciple Allis. Obviously the church does not fulfill in any literal way the great bulk of Israel’s promises which had to do with repossession of the land, Israel’s regathering, and a glorious kingdom on earth. It is much easier and more logical to seal off these promises as conditional and therefore no longer subject to fulfillment. This permits a more logical exposition of the passages without embarrassment by comparison with the history of the church. Further, Israel is promised curses as well as blessings under her covenants. To qualify for the blessings puts the church in a compromising position of being involved in Israel’s curses also. Modern amillennialism prefers to stand on New Testament rather than Old Testament promises. and privilege constantly in his epistles. He declares that their peculiar promises include the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, the promises, the fathers, and the privilege of being the people of whom Christ should come (Rom 9:4-5). Now, it is obvious that Paul is referring to Israel in unbelief when he refers to those who have these privileges, for he declares: “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites…” (Rom 9:3-4). He declares that they even in unbelief “are Israelites,” and relates to them all the peculiar privileges of Israel. It is evident that the institution of the church did not rob Israel in the flesh of its peculiar place of privilege before God.
This declaration is given added weight by the fact that in Ephesians 2:12 Gentiles are expressly declared to have been excluded from the promises given to Israel: “That at that time ye [Gentiles] were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” The passage goes on to state their privilege as Christians in the church. It is noteworthy that Paul does not say that the Gentiles came into these same Israelitish promises when they were converted; rather he pictures a work of God bringing Jew and Gentile into a new order entirely—”one new man” (Eph 2:15). It may be concluded without further argument that the distinction between natural Israel and Gentiles is continued after the institution of the church—Israel is still a genuine Israel, and the Gentiles continue to fulfill their part. While this fact of the Scripture is more or less admitted even by the amillennialist, the significance is not adequately realized. The continuance of Israel and Gentiles as such is a strong argument against either one being dispossessed of their own place. Israel is not reduced to the bankruptcy of the Gentiles—to become “strangers from the covenants of promises” (Eph 2:12), and the distinction between the two groups is maintained on the same sharp lines as before the church was instituted. the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?” (Rom 11:12). In other words, if the blindness which has fallen upon Israel nationally during this present age was the occasion for great blessing for the Gentiles, the “fulness” of Israel will bring a richness of blessing which will be “much more.” Now, obviously, there can be no fullness of Israel if they have no future. Their fullness will come when the present condition of blindness is lifted.
He takes occasion to warn the Gentiles of their present privileges on the basis of this argument. In Romans 11:15 he refers again to the future blessing of Israel: “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 is true that he speaks of Israel being broken off that the Gentiles might be grafted in (Rom 11:17-24), but he also speaks of the future ingrafting of Israel back into “their own olive tree” (Rom 11:24). This is contingent upon the “blindness” being lifted, and it is declared that the blindness will continue “until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in” (Rom 11:25). The use of the word until signifies not only that the period of Gentile blessing will end, but it also indicates that a future period of Israel’s ingrafting will follow. Samuel H. Wilkinson has brought this out: “If and when an ‘until’ sets a time-limit to any group of conditions, it makes the said group of conditions to be temporary not everlasting, to be preliminary not final. And the change, whatever it be, which is to occur when the time-limit is reached and passed, must surely refer to the same object as that which was submitted to the temporary conditions. With these two reasonable considerations in view, it will be found that all the time-limits described in the New Testament leave room for the full scope of Old Testament prophecy to become in due time realized.”6
The distinction between Israel outside of the church and the church itself, then, is a highly significant fact of Scripture. The Scriptures clearly state that Israel in unbelief is blinded, that this blinded condition is temporary not final, that the blindness will be lifted when the present period of Gentile blessing is concluded. The fulfillment of the covenants with Israel will follow, as Romans 11:26-32 indicates. Not only the fact of Israel’s continuance is revealed, but Israel’s present program and future blessings are specifically outlined in Romans eleven and other portions of Scripture which need not be discussed at this time.
Spiritual Israel and Gentile Christians contrasted. While the contrasts between Israel, Gentiles, and the church are severally important, the crux of the argument is the contrast between spiritual Israel, that is, those who have become Christians, and Gentile Christians. The twofold origin of Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians is obvious to all. In the attempt to disfranchise Israel of her promises, however, some amillenarians claim that the church, composed of both Gentiles and Jews, takes Israel’s place of blessing completely. It is pointed out that there has always been an inner circle of Israelites who were the “true Israel” and that these were the genuine inheritors of the promises, not the nation as a whole. It is the purpose of this discussion to inquire into only one phase of the problem—Is the church ever identified with true or spiritual Israel, that is, are Gentile Christians ever included in the designation Israel? The problem of whether the church actually inherits Israel’s promises and realizes them is reserved for later treatment.
Two principal passages are the foundation for the discussion. In Romans 9-11 the problem comes up repeatedly. In Romans 9:6 it is revealed: “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Those who have opposed a future for Israel find in this passage a proof-text for their theory that only a portion of Israel, that is, those who are “spiritual,” inherit the promises, and the rest are excluded from the promises. An examination of this passage, however, will reveal that the real contrast is not between those who inherit Abraham’s promises and those who do not. It is rather that the promises to Abraham are classified as belonging either to Israel according to the flesh or Israel which enters into the spiritual promises by faith—which are given also to Gentile believers (Gal 3:6-9, 14). It is not, therefore, a contrast between those who are excluded and those who are included, but rather a contrast between those who inherit only the national promises and those who inherit the spiritual promises. The line of national promises is narrowed to Isaac and his seed (Rom 9:7), and the line of spiritual promises is narrowed to those who believe. In the present age, Israel as a nation is blinded, which blindness will be lifted. As individuals, Israelites who believe belong to the election of grace (Rom 11:5-10). Both Israelites in the flesh (unbelievers) and Israelites who believe are genuine Israelites. They are sharply distinguished as to present blessings. Unbelieving Israelites are lost and blinded, while believing Israelites come into all the present blessings of the church. The distinction is always on the ground of whether or not they believe in Christ, not on whether they are true Israelites.
The second principal passage is found in Galatians 6:15-16, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.” It has been alleged on the basis of this passage that the church as such is specifically called the “Israel of God.” To this is opposed the fact that everywhere else in the Scriptures the term Israel is applied only to those who are the natural seed of Abraham and Isaac, never to Gentiles. If it can be sustained that in this passage the church is called Israel, it would, of course, be an argument for the identification of the church with Israel in the present age—though by no means conclusive, in the face of constant use of the term Israel in the Scriptures in reference to unbelieving Jews. An examination of Galatians 6:15-16, however, instead of proving any such identification is rather a specific instance where Jewish believers are distinguished from Gentile believers, and this by the very term Israel of God. Old Testament. It had always been limited to those who were genuine believers in the true God. Further, the “kingdom of God” is not to be identified with the millennial kingdom prophesied for Israel and the Gentile nations, though the millennial kingdom is an important manifestation and phase of the kingdom of God.
The declaration of Christ in this passage resolves itself into an affirmation that the unbelieving scribes and Pharisees would never be saved because of their rejection of the “son” of the “householder,” and that others would take their place. Gaebelein suggests that the “nation” which will take their place will be other Israelites: “The nation to whom the Lord promises the Kingdom is not the Church. The Church is called the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the Habitation of God by the Spirit, the Lamb’s Wife, but never a nation. The nation is Israel still, but that believing remnant of the nation, living when the Lord comes.”7
The second major passage bearing on this problem is Romans 11:1-32. This chapter deals with the question whether God has cast off Israel. To this leading question Paul replies in positive terms, “God forbid.” His argument may be summarized as a denial of this question. God has not cast away His people. There has always been a remnant in every age true to God. The unbelief of the nation Israel has never caused God to cast off His people as a whole (Rom 11:3-4). There has always been a continuing program for Israel as witnessed in the present election of grace. Some Jews are being saved. While unbelieving Jews are blinded now, their present blindness will be lifted and replaced by sight and faith. When this glad day comes “all Israel shall be saved” (Rom 11:26), meaning a group or national deliverance in contrast to the individual salvation offered now. At that time God’s covenants with Israel will be fulfilled, for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance, sure and irrevocable. The whole tenor of the chapter is against either the idea that Israel has lost all future hope of fulfillment of their promises through cancellation or that the church has received these promises and Israel is disinherited.
On the basis of this brief study of terminology, the evidence has been examined and found to produce nothing indicating that the term Israel is ever used of Gentiles. Rather it is used of the godly remnant in all ages, Christian Jews, and the future national entity anticipated through the Scriptures. None of these usages support the amillennial contention that Israel has no national future. With this as a foundation, Israel’s precise promises relative to the land, her regathering and repossession of it, may be considered.
Dallas, Texas
(Series to be continued in the July-September Number, 1952)
This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.
1 Albertus Pieters, The Seed of Abraham, pp. 19-20.
2 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p. 218.
3 Charles Hodge, Commentary on Romans, p. 589.
4 William Hendriksen, And So All Israel Shall Be Saved, p. 33.
6 The Israel Promises and Their Fulfillment (London: John Bale, Sons & Danielsson, Ltd., 1936), p. 78.
7 A. C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew (New York: Our Hope, 1910), II, 138.
“Are you, Jack Hydrazine, the one we should look to as the last word on Jesus Christ?”
Go study with an Orthodox rabbi. You can learn a lot from your deified rabbi if you take the time to study with today’s rabbis.
“Or might it be the 12 apostles, all Jewish, Paul and the original church, all Jewish, might they know a little bit more about it than you?”
Well, for one thing, those Jewish talmidim(rabbinical students) of your rabbi did not go to church. They went to synagogue. SHOCKER! And they weren’t Christian They were Jews. SHOCKER! And they went to synagogue on the Sabbath. SHOCKER! But the non-Jews were allowed to go because they wanted to know Torah, too. SHOCKER! Especially since there wasn’t a New Testament that had been created to replace the Torah. SHOCKER!
Since they were rabbinical students I suspect they knew way more than me, but there is so much to learn. Think of Christianity as a lake and Torah Judaism as the ocean.
I don’t take the New Testament seriously as being the word of God. As a history book, yes. You have to remember that whatever was written down went through the hands of the Catholic Church and altered to fit the Esavist agenda so I consider it suspect. Keep in mind that that Yaakov (Jacob) and Esav (Esau) were twins which makes the church and the synagogue twins.
What qualifies one to be God? How do you define Him?
Jews from day one on Mount Sinai were made to understand that God is non-corporeal and is beyond sex and gender. The only way to know him is to have His soul touch yours.
Just this basic defining of who He is has set so many into anger and with enough anger to mercilessly to try and kill every Jew on the planet since right at Sinai some 3,000 years ago.
“the only one who can open anyone’s spiritual eyes is the Holy Spirit.”
Absolutely!!!!! But your need the Torah to help ground you in your walk with the Holy Spirit. It’s a balance of both.
“...yet the vast majority of Jews rejected Him when he walked the earth and the vast majority have rejected Him for 2,000 years.”
I would say that it was about 50/50 between those who rejected his message of getting Jews to reject Helenism and return to Torah and those who accepted it.
“what do you make of Paul the Apostle?”
Hard to say since the writings about him went through the Church’s hands back in 312AD. If what we read is accurate he was very much a Jewish man on fire for God. Once God straightened him out a bit it he went about bringing the Torah to the Roman citizens who had started to thirst for it starting about 100 years before the Christian’s deified rabbi showed up. He was at the leading edge of this B’nai Noach movement. But then Rome co-opted it and things went south from there.
But then again Rome had over 30,000 gods at the time. To have such an influential, deified rabbi and his students get it pared down to 3 (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) is quite amazing. At one time ancient Egypt had around 30,000 gods, too, and look at the influential Jewish leader and the first messiah who brought Jews out of that cultural mess.
Hmmm, this doesn't sound Orthodox to me; Orthodox rabbis are normally only interested in Jews (no, I'm not going to include celebrity opportunists like Shmuely Boteach), with the reluctant exception for mixed marriage spouses who insist on conversion. Your comments sound more like a Gentile Noachide (bnei Noach) to me.
There’s plenty you can study online, at the book store, and at the library.
I just don't want the readers to mistake you for a Jew and blame Jews in general for your comments. Once they realize you are a Gentile who has rejected faith in the LORD Jesus Christ to try to be a righteous Gentile another way there is no deception, even unintentionally. Full disclosure as it were.
“to come to this thread to poke Christians in the eye by insulting Jesus by writing Your deified, Jewish rabbi believed them. I guess that qualifies him as Satan’s little helper?”
Hokai. I point out very basic Torah truths to you and the others reading this thread.
You express your opinion that those basic Torah truths are Satanic.
Isn’t it true that Jesus (not his real name, but if you want a more accurate English transliterated-equivalent name it would be Joshua; and I’m not joshin’ ya here), is defied by Christians the world over? Yes! Wasn’t his profession being a rabbi? Yes! (John 3:2 who don’t think so.)
So when I use the phrase, “the Christians deified rabbi,” am I being correct? Yes!
Since Jews and your deified rabbi believe in those basic Torah truths (from Moses to present) how should I respond?
Torah truths are Satanic. Jews follow Torah. Therefore, Jews are Satanists including Jesus which makes him Satan’s little helper along with every other Jew because they follow Torah. Is the logic sound? Yes.
Tell me where my logic is incorrect.
What I am saying any Jew worth his salt would say if pressed to say it.
What does any observant Jew say if he is about to die? The Shema.
“Listen, Israel! The Lord is our God; the Lord is One.”
If I took the time to explain on what just this one verse alone really means (based on what the rabbis have been saying over the past 3,000), and I have mentioned it a little already, would make you so angry it’s not even funny. Think of the anger the basics have wrought? All I would hear from you and others is how Satanic it is. Well, when you’ve listened to Esavist (aka Christian) propaganda all your life whaddaya expect?
I’ve studied a bit with the rabbis, but I’m not Jewish, AFAIK. But I do ascribe myself to be B’nai Noach and am of the opinion the rabbis are right. It took a very long time to come to that conclusion.
There is a prophecy given by given by Isaiah about the third Temple.
Isaiah 56:7 “...for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
When all of the nations show up to pray at the third Temple in the future which books do you think will study there?
The New Testament? No.
The Koran? No.
The Book of Mormon? No
The Zoroastrian Avesta collection? No.
The Hindu Vedas? No.
How about the Word of Buddha or the Five Classics of Confuscianism? No and no.
Books on Scientology? Absolutely not.
Only the Tanach (the Bible minus the New Testament) and the books of the Oral Torah will be there.
Why?
Because non-Jews will be moved by the Spirit of God to pursue Torah just like Roman citizens did 100 years before your rabbi showed up on the world stage. That pursuit started again back in the early 1960s just as secular Jews around the world started turning back to Torah.
This movement will continue upward and onward for those who want to grasp the Tree of Life. In the first Temple the Spirit of the Law was followed. In the Second, the letter of it was followed. And now the Third will be built by those who follow a balance of both.
And which God will they pray to in the Third Temple? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
You’ll never really understand your deified rabbi or what he said or did until you take the time to go back to the original and study it and pray about it.
One God, One Torah, One People to lead humanity to closer to God.
(From the movie, ‘The Highlander’)
“In the end, there can only be one.”
Not even close...When you invent a theology it's pretty easy to take a verse and make things up with it...
The church is never called Israel in the scriptures or the commonwealth of Israel...By this time the church, Christians are called-Christians...NOT the commonwealth of Israel...
Just prior to that salvation was offered only to Jews, the commonwealth of Israel (prior to Peter's revelation)...
Act 11:19 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.
When a Jew believed on the Lord Jesus Christ he was put into Jesus Christ...Spiritually or religiously he was no longer a Jew or Israel but a Christian...
When a Gentile believed on the Lord Jesus Christ he was put into Jesus Christ as well...
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Gentiles did not become Israel and Israel did not become Gentiles...We are both made one, i.e, Christians...
Joh 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
Joh 12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Of course they are worshiping the one true God...They are the only group of people on earth who had their eyes and minds blinded about Jesus Christ by God...
Others who reject Jesus make a personal decision not to...Israel has no option (except for a few)...
But then you may be in that group who's mind has been blinded by the Devil...
2Co 4:1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
2Co 4:2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
2Co 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Can you prove your Catholic Tradition is true??? Bible tells you to prove all things...
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
sa 30:8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:
Isa 30:9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD:
What religion are you? Just curiosity. For fairness' sake, I am a conservative Christian and a Methodist pastor.
I ask because of:
1 Timothy 2:4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.…
Thank you for telling the truth. Please, if you are going to try to teach Judaism, let your audience know up front that you are not a Jew but a Gentile of the Bnei Noach sect or persuasion. That is the right and honorable thing to do so that others do not think it is a Jew writing what you write.
Religion? B’nai Noach
“5 For there is one God,”
He gets that right on the money.
“and one mediator also between God and men,”
Judaism recognizes that there is no heavenly mediator between God and man because God doesn’t need one nor require one. The relationship between a man and God is direct, one-on-one, soul-to-soul. When you start requiring a mediator then people start picking all sorts of mediators for themselves. A good example of this is Catholics who pray to Mary, dead martyrs and saints and beatified popes.
Look at the time when Jews were in the desert and before the sin of the golden calf. The mediator of the Jewish people, if you want to call him that, was Moses. His goal in life was not to be in that position of power and be entrenched in it between Jews and God but to teach Jews that they could have that one-on-one, soul-to-soul relationship just as Moses did. His job was to put himself out of a job as mediator. Here’s a good example of him mediating.
Numbers Chapter 21:
7. The people came to Moses and said, “We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord and against you. Pray to the Lord that He remove the snakes from us.” So Moses prayed on behalf of the people.
After the sin of the golden calf there was more distance created between Jews and God. Then Aaron was appointed as mediator and a Mishkan (tabernacle) created to formalize the procedures for climbing up the ladder of holiness so mistakes would not be made. Then later came the First Temple and then the Second.
During your rabbi’s time he did exactly the same thing as Moses. His job was to restore the relationship between his fellow Jew and God by teaching them to get back to both the letter and the Spirit of the Torah. This is the job of all rabbis. He was there to put himself out of the job of being that rabbi, mediator figure. Once that relationship is restored as a whole in the future there won’t be much of a need for rabbis or even police.
If Jesus is God what is the point of being a mediator? Between whom is he mediating?
But you can go back even earlier in Genesis to find Abraham being a mediator in the role of prophet.
Gen. 20:
7. And now, return the man’s wife, because he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and [you will] live; but if you do not return [her], know that you will surely die, you and all that is yours.”
17. And Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech and his wife and his handmaids, and they gave birth.
He also interceded on behalf of those in Sodom and Gomorrah to save them from the fire that descended from the sky and burned those cities to the ground. (Gen 18:23-32)
His son Isaac learned to intercede from his father.
Gen 25:
21. And Isaac prayed to the Lord opposite his wife because she was barren, and the Lord accepted his prayer, and Rebecca his wife conceived.
But keep in mind that Jewish priests, prophets, judges and kings have acted as mediators. Lots of references there if I had time to type them all.
The pattern we see here is compassionate, caring, more and less educated human beings acting as mediators through prayer for others. Every human being is capable of doing such and your rabbi’s job during his time here on Earth was to teach this among many other things.
OK, so you are not some variety of Christian.
Got it. That explains your statement.
Jesus being the mediator for believers makes sense if, as we believe, God is Trinity.
In Judaism there is no Trinity. There is only one God and one only. He’s indivisible and non-corporeal and infinite which means he can’t be put into a box.
Is your group “Jewish” Judaism or a form of gentile “Judaism”?
But Torah became flesh and dwelt among us..
The Messiah of Israel is different than what greco roman latin chuches observes and teaches.
The new testament is the telling of His life while He tabernacled with us..
The new testament confirms Torah... what christendom has done with the greco roman latin mother church as the leader, is reduce Torah to ‘old’..
If believers rejected things like december 25, good friday and easter sunday a greco roman latin counterfeits, then Torah, Tanakh and the New Testament are in agreement..
And if a believer does it honestly, it means that the greco roman latin mother church has had way too much influence on their work and worship life..
In a couple days, the new testament reports the birth of the Messiah. (Revelation 12)
It will be a regular old work day in the world.. in Torah and Tanakh, it is an appointed time for worship.
Revelation 12 details a vision in the sky that points to the First day of the 6th month of His calendar when the sun clothed her and the moon was under her feet.
Jews celebrate it as the first day of the 7th month.... wonder if they are off by a month when they celebrate their feasts or the ‘age’ has changed.
Passover occurs today when the sun is in Pisces, not in Aries as it was for Moses and how it was showed in history . so instead of the Ram/Lamb which is represented by Aries, it is the two fish of Pisces.,, to be fair, it was observed around the equinox as Aries used to be the sign in the sky that held that spring equinox.
Pisces isn’t a lamb/ram— it is two fish..
People who have read the New Testament understands there is a reference to the ‘fishers’ of men and the feeding of the multitude.
If Pisces is the head of the year, the 7th month is not Libra but Virgo, the virgin.
People who have read the New Testament also understand the Virgin Bride..
If Jews celebrate their Passover in Pisces, they observe Yom Kippur when the sun is in Virgo and not Libra ( which is the the scales in the sky- certainly an ordained constellation for the day of atonement)
Israel today observes their feasts in constellations that were not the case for Moses. They may not have moved, but the earth has and it has affected the stars that are seen at certain times in our sky..
They celebrate them under the two fish and the virgin.. a picture of evangelism and the virgin bride, His church.. that is a work of YHWH alone.
If they had so much reverence for Torah and Tanakh, they wouldn’t have a pope appointed sabbath day and suspension and postponement rules for
for when that day conflicted with His feasts..
If they observed as it was for Moses with the sun, moon and stars aligned, they may see the Messiah hit very important days in the appointed times that cannot be fulfilled with a calendar a month off..
Maybe jews and christians are all under a delusion that their worship is not vain and it isn’t the Word that has caused it- It is traditions..
Judaism has always not had a trinity. The pagans on the other hand...
It was the angels talking to God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.