Posted on 02/04/2011 11:29:26 AM PST by RJR_fan
Bottom Line (last few paragraphs):
Based on the continuity of themes—wealth, kingdom, inheritance—Jesus’ teaching to the disciples should be considered of one piece with the parable of the rich fool. The section of Scripture, Luke 12:13–34, should be taken as a whole. And the immediate message was the disinheritance of Israel, and the transfer of the Kingdom to the New Testament church. This blessing, we are told, is the “Father’s good pleasure” (12:32).
I’m not sure the “so that … and” follows from the rest. If you ask your question(s) I'll see if I can help out with an answer.
“Looks like RJR is just an anti-semite and racist to me.”
Easy enough to claim, esp. when the discussion turns to the matter of national Israel during the time of Christ. And most people tend to project their feelings/views for modern Israel back to those days and vice versa, only complicating matters. And projecting views of the nation vs. feeling towards individual Jews (most of whom today are not directly associated with the nation of Israel).
There is nothing inherently anti-semitic about the notion that God’s judged ancient Israel for their sin against God’s prophets and “the son of the landowner.” That what Jesus told them would happen if they did not repent (like Jonah and Nineveh).
33 "Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country.Like the prophets of the OT, Jesus’ words were primarily directed against the leadership of Israel who had turned the people away from God, and God’s divine Messenger. In the new covenant there would be new leadership among the new Israel.
38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.'
40 Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?"
41 They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons."
42 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'?
43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. (Matt. 21)
The route of escape for faithful Jews was to follow after their Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ. Many did, by the thousands, and were spared from the “days of vengeance” that came upon Jerusalem (Luke 21:20ff).
Pointing this out is hardly anti-semitism is any rational sense.
Simply put, exactly how I asked before.
Do you believe that God sent Christ to act as a Spiritual Lawyer of sorts, to act as the prosecution in God’s case against Israel to show that He, God, was correct in divorcing Israel due to her infidelity?
The second part of the question, stating that the purpose of the divorce was so that God could marry the Church, is also important in that it establishes God’s motivation for the divorce from Israel.
So, again, do you believe God divorced Israel to marry the Church?
You are reading way too much into the intended point.
The issue of whether or not Jews are saved by Grace alone, through Christ alone is not even being discussed here. I think this is obvious.
I am not a dispensationalist by any means. The problem being pointed out here is the antisemitic idealogies that have pervaded Christian circles, even in the reformed protestant movements, which I find has no Biblical basis and it is just another form of hate...
A most appropriate passage for all the ages.
History is never shaped by majorities. When Gideon went forth against the hosts of Midian, the first step was to shrink the size of his band by several increments, finally ending up with a remnant of 300 able warriors.
A remnant of first-century Israel got the point, and got with the program. God did not divorce or replace this remnant, but lavished incredible additional blessings upon faithful Israel. The faithful remnant of old Israel became the core of new Israel. Those who faithfully stewarded the OT covenant mercies that God poured upon old Israel set the standard, the pace, and the agenda in many ways for new Israel. The synagogue liturgy became the pattern for the Christian worship service. The Sacred Bridge examines clues to the continuity between Jewish psalmody and Gregorian Chant. The Bible of faithful Israel, the LXX, was embraced by new Israel with so much enthusiasm[1] that rebellious Israel went retro, and resurrected the Hebrew / Aramaic text. Which was a good thing, even if done for arguably suspect motives.
Personally, I find God's willingness to lavish blessings upon a tiny faithful remnant to be a source of immense encouragement. Today, the majority of American Christians actually participate in the cult of Caesar, worshiping that idol with offerings of their own children. But, a faithful remnant refuses to render unto Caesar that which is God's, the children entrusted to their care. The future is being shaped in millions of home-schooling families, a vigorous, irate, and energetic minority that is not content to go with the flow, to go with the majority.
God is, and always has been, faithful to His faithful people. His covenant mercies are forever, and those who are determined to be in on what God is up to can find themselves enriched from unexpected directions. In the first century, Gentiles suddenly flocked to the banner of the God of Israel, and were made welcome by the faithful remnant of believing Jews. Today, there are home school families that study Arabic, Turkish, and Persian, pray for revival among the Muslims, and befriend students from Muslim lands.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob continue to bring glory to His name and blessings to all nations through the Lord Jesus Christ.
>>and befriend students from Muslim lands.<<
You go right ahead RJR. I’ll head scripture.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Put precisely that way, the answer is “no.”
Interesting.
You state in your earlier post that “God did not divorce or replace this remnant, but lavished incredible additional blessings upon faithful Israel.” yet by stating this, you admit that you believe God divorced the unfaithful portion of Israel.
By saying this, you make God out to be a liar, as it was Christ Himself that said that it was only because of the hardness of mankind’s heart that Moses allowed for divorce. Divorce is not a creation that God has ordained, it is against His natural order of things and to say that God, in His longsuffering patience, would actually stoop to such a human evil as divorce proves that your theory, despite it’s high minded ideals and great schools of thought, is wrong from the outset. What is that verse again, you know, the one we base our own wedding vows upon? “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt 19:6)
Your focus on God’s divorce of those who left Him betrays your own misunderstanding of God’s love and, more importantly, God’s knowledge of the future. For God to divorce Israel and to marry the Church, He would not only have to be a liar, because of the verses that state divorce is not designed by God but is a response by Moses to the evil hearts of mankind(Matt 19:7-9, Mark 10:4-9), but also not able to even conduct Himself above the emotional range of a mere mortal by seeking out a divorce as if He were a man and given to evil thoughts. Furthermore, for God to divorce Israel and marry the Church, you would have God acting as some kind of monster or worse since He would know about the marriage supper of the Lamb. After all, the Church is the bride of the Lamb, not the bride of the Father.
You’ve got some pretty twisted Theology, would you like to try it again?
Very well, let me refine it.
If God is still married to the remenant of the faithful, how can the Lamb marry the Church, as shown in Rev. 19?
You’re theory has the Father married to the Son’s bride. Do I even need to go into how wrong that kind of logic is?
I’m probably going to regret stepping into this, but ... the Father and the Son are the same. If the Father is married to the Son’s bride, it not only makes sense, it is mandatory.
Actually no, they’re not the same. I’m not being snarky here, but you might want to study on the concept of the Triune Godhead and the Trinity. The assumption that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are the same is actually a form of modalism and is technically a heresy, althought I suspect you don’t do it from malignance so much as ignorance of the subject.
God has joined gentiles to the faithful remnant of Israel to produce “one new man.” Unbelief was broken off from the true Israel.
10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.Jews and gentiles reconciled into one new man. This is the continuation of faithful Israel. National Israel was a container for the true Israel, the remnant.
11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands--
12 that at that time you 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.
13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,
15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace,
16 and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity.
17 And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near.
18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, (Ephesians 2)6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,
7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, "In Isaac your seed shall be called."
27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, The remnant will be saved. (Romans 9)
You’re theory has the Father married to the Son’s bride.
Actually, no. First of all we are not tri-theists. There are not three Gods in view.
However, what you’ve described sounds similar to the theory of the dispensationalists who had Israel as the wife of the Father in the OT and the Church as the wife of Christ in the NT. Sounds like the Marcion heresy.
God has always had but one true wife, those who placed their faith in God’s salvation by Messiah. Abraham was as much a child of the true Israel as Peter and Paul. This divorce in question had to do with the national/external entity of ancient Israel. It was a way of transition from the old covenant to the new covenant.
I started to say that you completely ignored the problem until I got to this little gem.
“Actually, no. First of all we are not tri-theists. There are not three Gods in view.”
No one ever said that there were three gods in view, but there are three persons in the Godhead.
Quick question, do you believe that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true or heresy?
It's true. Do you believe God is a polygamist, that each person can have their own wife?
Faithless "Israel" != real Israel.
Interesting to meet a dispensationalist who honestly confesses his ignorance. There's hope for you yet!
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.