Posted on 11/26/2002 6:07:31 AM PST by Jean Chauvin
Jean
Jean
Dan
Jean
I've often found those who make the same claim about a 'straightforward reading of scripture' make some rather hilarious arguments as to why the following passages ~shouldn't~ be read in a straightforward way:
Matthew 18
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
(Christ's directions to the apostles which came before Pentecost and the 'supposed' beginning of the 'church'.)
Acts 7
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
(The church in the wilderness is Israel!)
Romans 11
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
(We gentiles are 'grafted in' and 'partake' of the vedy same root -we are one!)
Galatians 3
28 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.
(There ~is~ no Jew nor Greek!)
Galatians 6
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
(This is Paul telling the Galatian (gentile) Christians that they are the "Israel of God".)
I get lots of 'explaining away' of these passages and their rather obviousl meanings!
Jean
I'm more concerned about the biblical definition than how ~you~ define things.
I've also noted that your doin' an awful lot of splanin' away of the obvious meanings of these passages.
"...first mentioned in Acts..."
Tell me, when was it first mentioned in Acts?
"...absolutely no where in the OT"
First of all, the Greek word used for "church" is ekklesia. This is precisely the same word used in Acts 7:38 to describe O.T. Israel.
Second, since the O.T. was written in Hebrew one would not expect to find the greek word ekklesia in the Hebrew O.T., now would we?
But, the Greek word ekklesia, which means "called out ones" or "assembly", has a corresponding Hebrew word which is qahal.
qahal is used 116 times in the O.T. to describe the congregation of Jewish believers.
It gets even more interesting when you look in the Greek O.T., the LXX -also called the Septuigent, which was written before Christ's birth and was the translation that Christ and the Apostles used. The Greek LXX translates the Hebrew qahal as ekklesia (or 'church') some ~70~ times.
The point is that the refernece to 'church' (the Greek ekklesia) was understood by the apostles and Jesus to be the same refernce to the congregated body of believers!
Jean
It doesn't.
Jean
Thus for those of us who are in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek for we are all part of the Church, the body of Christ. However those descendents of Abraham through Issac and Jacob who have not accepted Jesus Christ are not part of his body; and not being part of the Church are still Jews. What He tells us about treatment of the Church and of believers generally is not applicable literally to Jews.
The Old Testiment is full of promises to the descendents of Abraham; and full of unfulfilled prophecies about God's future treatment of descendants of Abraham. To interpret the words about grafting Christians into these promises is to modify them so as not to give the descendants of Abraham what God promised Abraham He would provide.
Simply no real room for argument--the church is not Israel under any reading of the words.
Like your reading of Galations 6:16 to be Paul telling the Galatian (gentile) Christians that they are the "Israel of God". It just doesn't say that. I can't even figure out a way reasonable or otherwise to read Gal 6:16 to say that so I can try to respond--that simply is not what the words say.
You ought to read Gal 3:6-29. Vss 7-9 "Know therefore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseening thagt God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all the nations be blessed. So then they that are of faith are blessed with the faithful Abraham."
Vss 13,14 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us; for it is written, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree': that upon the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Christ Jesus; theat we might recieve the promise of the Spirit through faith."
Vs. 29 "And if ye are Christ's, than are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."
Very clear, very literally true.
And as far as the natural, fleshly disobedient, rebellious seed of Abraham receiving the blessings (apart from faith) by keeping the law Vs 10 "For as many as are of the works of the law are under a curse: for as it is written, 'Cursed is every one who coninueth not in all things that are writeen in the book of the law, to do them'".
Why do you believe that OT unbelieving Jews, members of national Israel, will receive the blessings of Abraham?
In the light of Gal 3:10 why do you believe that the law, which can only curse and not save, will be reinstitued during the 1000 year millennial reign?
I am troubled by the point made in #14 by gdebrae from Galations 3:7-9 to the effect that "they that are of faith, the same are sons of Abraham" and from verse 29 "and if ye are Christ's, than are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise".
The thrust of this argument is in defense of at least Darby's reading of the scripture to the effect that the Church Age comes to an end in a period of tribulation of some indefinite length in which the Church is removed to the Lord by an event we have labled the "Rapture"; the tribulation concluding in the visible physical return of Jesus Christ as Conquering King establishing his Kingdom on earth for a thousand years.
Argument is that after removal of the Church, God returns to the Jews as his principal vehicle for dealing with mankind. Jean's response to this article or several responses really, is to attack the proposition that God has returned to the Jews as a vehicle by arguing that the church is merged with Israel for purposes of these prophecies and that they thus cannot be said to contemplate some separate period after the tribulation.
Now I neither want to invite argument nor concede the point that there is a large body of scripture for which the anti-dispensationalist position does not account--yes I know that arguments are advanced that Daniel's 70th week occured some other time; that the Revelation is unnecessary because all these events have already happened or maybe they are only allegorical or maybe something else; Jesus really didn't mean there would be a tribulation in the future in the Olivet Discourse. Problem is that there are fifty different versions of each of these responses and when you take them up one at a time, no single one of them fits all the facts in the record. Real answer is that Darby's view is the only one which fits all the facts and all the scripture.
I share the frustration of the anti-dispensational group with the additions and modifications that the so called literalists want to make to the scripture--no where is there a literal case that the tribulation is seven years long; no where is there a literal case that the tribulation starts with the agreement between Israel and the prince of Daniel 9:27. The whole case for the narrow lines dividing the various dispensations is in fact a little less than scripturally literal.
None of that detracts from the clear point that prior to the commencement of "wrath" (I Thess 5:9), we who are alive and remain will be caught up in the clouds with the Lord and all other believers of all generations of the Church Age (I Thess 4:16-17), wrath to commence as specified in Revelation 6:17.
Thus it also seems clear to me that the Church is absent for the period beginning after Revelation 6:17, at the end of which Satan is bound for a thousand years (Revelation 20:2). I could go on. The argument that the thousand years commenced at the cruxification of Jesus Christ is nonsense--there just is not any period since April 5, 30 AD in which you could view the world as a place from which Satan has been removed--to say nothing of the problem presented by the fact that this period has gone on for a lot longer than a thousand years.
Point here is the proposition that after all believers--the Church, are caught up in the clouds as described in I Thess 4:16-17, and elsewhere (Corin 15:51 etc.); there is this group of 12000 each from each of 12 tribes of Israel who are sealed as "servants of our God" in Revelation 7:3-8. Point is these guys can't be the Church because of the caught up in the clouds stuff; chronologically they come after wrath in 6:17; if they were Church before sealing, they would be gone.
If these people are not Israel, why would God describe them by membership in the tribes of Israel? If they were the Church, wouldn't He just say so?
Jean says I am returning to the Jews because I think they are somehow justified by the law--no. I know they are not--I can read the words. I read Revelation 7 and God does not tell us specifically what His relationship there with these clearly identified members of the tribes of Israel is based on. I speculate that these guys probably accept Jesus Christ as Messiah and King. I think it is an imminently logical inference that they are the group referred to elsewhere as the "elect of Israel".
Now about the narrow issue in Galations of the promise to which those of faith succeed; and heirs to which promise; the promise God is talking about here through Paul is the promise of a path of redemption other than through the law; which God promised Abraham would come to bless all the nations (not just Israel) through his (Abraham's) descendants.
The prophecies I am talking about that separate Israel from the Church are those about the house of Jacob in a period described as being after a regathering in the land of Judah (see Isaiah for example); and the promise which I cannot find any way to read the Church into is one of "regathering" in the land of Israel; and of a period of governance and judges which I do not find a place for anywhere in the revealed chronology of God's plan other than after the binding of Satan in Revelation 20:2.
7Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it.
8And it shall come to pass in that day, saith Jehovah of hosts, that I will break his yoke from off thy neck, and will burst thy bonds; and strangers shall no more make him their bondman;
9but they shall serve Jehovah their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up unto them.
=====
Time of Jacob's Trouble = Tribulation ???
Resurrected David as king = Christ (the anti-type) ???
Excellant point. Note that in Isaiah and throughout the major prophets where He is addressing these issues God refers to those descendants of Abraham he is talking about as "Jacob" rather than a general heirs to the promises.
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.