Replies

The Ignorant Fisherman wrote”

“Danny,
People confuse the church and Israel. When they are confused by them they usually throw Israel under the bus and spiritualize all of Israel’s promises given to them by God for the “Church”.. That is where we have most of our problems..”

Danny?

Whatever.

Look, this really is not that complicated. God promised the first man and woman a Savior from death, which they brought on themselves because of their sin. (Geneses 3:15) The Savior is referred to as the Seed of the woman. Other names, titles, and description will be added throughout the later Old Testament, but all refer to the same One. Do you disagree with this simple observation? If so, we might as well stop the discussion right now, because we would be operating with two entirely different hermeneutics.

I will assume for now, unless you object, that you agree.

Now, the next simple observation has to be verbalized. The Seed was understood by Eve (and surely also Adam) to be not merely her descendent, that is, fully human, but also divine. Thus her exclamation at the birth of her firstborn: “I have acquired a man, the LORD.” (Genesis 4:1) Yes, I know this runs contrary to the KJV and most other English (and other language) translations. However, if you look at the Hebrew text, it is, grammatically, the easiest and most natural translation while at the same time, theologically, being the most startling and, to many, upsetting translation, as the history of its translation shows. Gee, God surprising and upsetting man! As if this isn’t in fact the pattern of divine revelation.

I will assume you will take some time to digest this observation if it is new to you (although it is not new at all). If you disagree, we would have to stop and clarify ... or simply part knowing that we are hopelessly disagreed.

The last simple observation, for now, is this. If the promised Savior, was to be both God and man in one person, then He would have to be of a certain geographical area, of a certain linguistic affinity, of a certain ethnicity, of a certain nationality, of a certain time and space, of a certain mother, and of a certain sex (obviously, to be human narrows the possibilities to two: male or female). This we could call the scandal of particularity.

And it truly is scandalizing as well as being paradoxical. How could the Savior of the world be a particular man from a particular mother from a particular town in a particular time with particular nationality, ethnicity, and linguistic affinity? This has troubled humanity from early on.

If you look at the first great and detailed reiteration of the promise, Genesis 12:1-3, you see the particulars being addressed in the first parts, we could say contingent parts, of the promises, so that the final part could be actualized, i.e., that the One who was to come from Abram would be a blessing to “all the families of the earth.”

The significance of the terms Hebrews (ethnic/linguistic identity), Israelites (tribal/national identity), and Jews (religious identity), all of which are used correctly at all times in the Old and New Testament, these distinctions of meaning being carefully observed, has to do with the promise to Abram. It does because, as Jesus said, “You study the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they that testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39)

There is only one promise (with many contingent parts, each requiring fulfillment to actualize the ultimate and greatest part). There is only one Savior. And there is only one people of God, whether of the Old or New Testament, and that is those who know this promise, this Savior, and trust in Him alone for forgiveness, life, and salvation. To divide God’s people into two, however you try to do so, whether “church and Israel,” “Jew and Greek/Gentile,” or “old covenant nation and new covenant people” is to put asunder what God in Christ has put together.

I cannot accept the premises of your stated theological position because they are at variance with the Holy Scriptures as a whole. Now, beware, I am not saying that you are wrong in all points. Nor am I saying that you are a heretic headed for perdition. Nor am I saying that you are not a Christian. But I am saying that the framework you set forth for interpreting the “millenium” and the “rapture” is standing on a biblically flawed foundation.

Please excuse any unintended typographical errors. I am a terrible editor of my own writing.