Which One is the Good Guy?

[Veritas]

Hello Jeff, thanks for the welcome back! I've been around... but I've only been posting a little because I've been busy.

I felt I had to post because I agree with you that it is the hurting people God has a special place in his heart for. And there are certainly hurt people on both sides of the conflict regarding Israel. If anyone needs fighting for it is those who cannot defend themselves like those children pictured. If Israel can provide a better enviorment for the helpless and hurting than what might be if it wasn't there then, so be it...support the nation. But I think weapons must be laid down regardless if the helpless will be spared in doing so.

I also get really nervous when people interpret Israel into end times stuff because I think it is overdone and dangerous. Like I posted before, Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. And I think people are forcing earthly kingdom stuff into play over there. It's like a self-fufilling disaster in the making. And I think the disaster is certainly of man.

 

[destiny]

I also get really nervous when people interpret Israel into end times stuff because I think it is overdone and dangerous

You are kidding, right? Israel is THE predominant factor of the endtimes. :o

 

[Veritas]

No I'm not kidding, I'm an amillennialist.

...some info on it:

An eschatology which does not teach a literal thousand-year earthly
reign of Christ may be called "amillennialist" (sometimes called "realized millennialism"
because the period spoken of in Revelation 20 is now in the process of realization).
Although the detailed exegesis of the pertinent texts may vary somewhat among
amillennialist Christians, those who adhere to this position agree that the "thousandyear"
reference in Revelation 20 is a figurative expression for the present reign of Christ
which began upon His ascension into heaven and will be fully manifested at His second
coming. Christ's second coming will be one event at which time He will, in the words of
Martin Luther, "raise up me and all the dead, and give unto me and all believers in
Christ eternal life"

See, I believe the Christian church IS Israel restored.

So the prophetic promises of the restoration of Israel (such as Ezekiel 37; Hos. 1 :8-11; Micah 4:1-5:9; Zeph. 3:11-20; Is. 11:10 16; 60-61) were partially fulfilled in the return from the Babylonian captivity in 538 B.C., but ultimately the fulfilled with Christ, the New Israel, and His Church

I understand that the prophet Amos foresees that the Davidic dynasty will be rebuilt to incorporate the remnant of Edom and of all the nations (Amos 9:11-12). But according to the apostle James this prophecy was fulfilled when, through the preaching of the Gospel, God called out from the Gentiles a "people for His name" (Acts 15:13-18). So I believe it is contrary to Scripture to teach as Biblical doctrine the opinion that the fulfillment of the promises of Israel's restoration took place in the establishment of the secular state of modern Israel in 1948 and/or in the Jewish taking of Old Jerusalem in 1967.

There really isn't a place in the Bible where the new Israel over which the Messiah rules is portrayed as a secular, political entity. As I've said before, Jesus explicitly rejected the notion that His messianic office could be conceived of in political terms (John 18:36-37; Luke 24:44-47).

 

[destiny]

I won't bother to post all the scripture that is centered around Israel in these last days. Nor the anti-christs 1260 day false peace plan; or the abomination of desolation; or anything about Armageddon, 'the war that will end in fire for the enemies of Israel'.

One thing is apparent, I gotta go from here!

 

[Vic C.]

This just got interesting. You two should take this discussion to the End Times Forum. 8-)

Craig, I didn't know you were amil; not too many amil believers post in End times. Most there are premillennial futurists.

 

[Drew]

He did not transfer the blessings meant for Israel to the church. We are two distinct groups.

I disagree.

One of the central themes of Romans is precisely that God has indeed transferred the blessings from "ethnic Israel" to "Israel according to the Spirit". Of course, the latter group does contain members of the former, Paul being but one example. Here is some scriptural evidence to support my position:

Here at the end of Romans 2, he clearly "defines" a new Israel and we shall see that it is this Israel that gets the covenant blessings:

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God

In Romans 4, Paul writes:

Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

And we know that Paul goes on to answer this question with a resounding "it is also for the uncircumsized".

I do not have the time to make the case in this post, but forgiveness of sin, return from exile, being raised to life from the dead - these are all the blessings associated with covenant renewal. And all these blessings have been given over to the "true" people of God.

And here again from the same chapter:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

In Romans 8, and obviously in reference to the church (and not ethnic Israel), Paul writes:

Now if we are children, then we are heirsâ€â€heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory

The church is to inherit the covenant blessings, not national Israel.

And now in Romans 9 we have what I think is the clearest indication yet - the covenant blessings are destined for "Israel according to the Spirit", not ethnic Israel.

Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised![a] Amen.
6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

What do offspring get? The inheritance. It is this "true" Israel that will inherit the covenant blessings, and Paul makes it clear that he believes national Israel has missed out when he introduces the above material with this:

I speak the truth in Christâ€â€I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit 2I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel

I do not see how one can reconcile these texts with your stated position above. When Paul says "it is not as though God's word has failed, he is introducing an argument to the effect that while national Israel has indeed missed out on the covenant promise, there is indeed "another" Israel which has received them, and God had never promised anything different.

And yet again in Romans 11, we have an unambiguous statement that promises that were thought to be for ethnic Israel have been transferred to the church.

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did

 

[Drew]

He did not transfer the blessings meant for Israel to the church. We are two distinct groups.

From Galatians:

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

I hope that I do not need to state the obvious. Paul is asserting that Peter was wrong. What is Peter wrong about? He is wrong to recognize a distinction between Jew and Gentile by refusing to eat with the Gentiles.

And what does Paul say elsewhere about the "gospel" that these Jews were not following when they chose to eat by themselves?

It is this (with the proper rendition of the original Greek):

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then equally for the Gentile.

We are one family. We are to eat at the same table. The badge of covenant membership knows no racial or ethnic boundaries. We are marked out by only one thing - faith.

 

[Veritas]

I won't bother to post all the scripture that is centered around Israel in these last days. Nor the anti-christs 1260 day false peace plan; or the abomination of desolation; or anything about Armageddon, 'the war that will end in fire for the enemies of Israel'.

One thing is apparent, I gotta go from here!

Heh... sorry destiny... didn't mean to make you go crazy over there.

This just got interesting. You two should take this discussion to the End Times Forum.

Craig, I didn't know you were amil; not too many amil believers post in End times. Most there are premillennial futurists.

Yeah.. I usually don't say much about it because I don't want it to be divisive with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I don't think its a salvation dependent issue. My view is that if we are in Christ and we're wrong about the future and some of the prophecies, then we're wrong, but Christ will take care of us.

I don't know, if destiny doesn't mind and if others would find it interesting... I'd talk about it.

 

[destiny]

Naaa, I don't have the heart for laying out an argument or debate-discussion. It can get time consuming or else you feel obligated to it once it gets started. I just like to say my piece and move on at my own will without hindrance.

Freely moving wherever the wind blows. (doesn't that sound poetic?) :-D

 

[stovebolts]

Hey Craig,
I'm not much of an "End Timer" myself, though I've got a few views that like you, I just dont' bring up mostly because I beleive that we can either bring a piece of heaven to earth, or we can bring a piece of hell to earth depending on the choices we make each day.

I'd be interested in hearing your views.

BTW Drew,
Thanks for taking the time to put all of your posts in such a readable form. I've often thought of just the things that you have posted, but could never get them articulated like you did.
Thanks for all of your hard work.

Destiny,
I hope that you don't think that this is a salvation issue between Christians because it's not. For me, it's about doing what's right in God's eyes and leading by example. I dont' know, call me a moralist. Israel has a tough challenge ahead of themselves, but then Israel also has a long history of being stiff necked and not listening to God commands or prophets even to the point of crucifying the Christ.

Jesus tells us to take the log out of our own eye before we take the sliver out of our brothers eye. This teaching was not a New Teaching, but rather was derived out of the Hebrew Scriptures. In my opinion, Israel should work on being that light that God had intended them to be, and by doing so, which is to say, "By trusting God", I have faith that Israel will be the worldly nation that God intended them to be.

 

[Veritas]

I hope that you don't think that this is a salvation issue between Christians because it's not. For me, it's about doing what's right in God's eyes and leading by example. I dont' know, call me a moralist.

Huh... I know this is off topic... but I have to interject... because if that's true Jeff, I'm done for. I'm just hanging onto the gift God gave me.

 

[stovebolts]

I hope that you don't think that this is a salvation issue between Christians because it's not. For me, it's about doing what's right in God's eyes and leading by example. I dont' know, call me a moralist.

Huh... I know this is off topic... but I have to interject... because if that's true Jeff, I'm done for. I'm just hanging onto the gift God gave me.

I don't think I'm understanding what your saying Craig. Did I not articulate myself well enough?

When I say, "Not a salvation issue", I'm referring to how we view our differences in End Time Theologies.

When I say, "It's about doing what's right in God's eyes", I mean that we as Christians have a choice in how we not only view the world, but how we act in it. For these examples, it's best if we study the Word of God to learn from the mistakes of others or to look for advice on how to handle certain situations. For instance, some things may really irk me to the point were the veins in my neck or forehead start to stick out. Because I get angry, does that make me a bad Christian? I don't think so. Often, Jesus would get angry, but he used that Anger for the greater good, like healing the lame.

Were not perfect and to think that we are is to decieve ourselves. In the meantime, I can honestly say, "Thank God that God's not finished with me yet!"

When I said, "By leading by example", what I mean is that people are watching us whether we realize it or not so we ought to be on our best behavior all the time. Does that make us perfect? Absolutely not and we shouldn't think so high of ourselves that we begin to believe that we are.

When I said, "call me a moralist", I mean that there are many morals set forth in scripture that we should adhere to. We should not go against what is morally right.

Other than that? What did I say to throw the red flag?

 

[Veritas]

Oh, I just mean that if salvation depends on what I do.... I'm doomed because I've done alot of bad things and made many poor choices. My hope is in God's gift of salvation.... you know, like Paul said:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithâ€â€and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works... Ephesians 2:8-9

...of course through God's gift of faith I can do good works, but I don't think those good works are a salvation issue anymore than endtime theologies.

 

[stovebolts]

Ohh goodness Craig, I feel like, “Here we go againâ€Â… (can ya feel my frustration?)

Why is it that anytime anyone mentions “Good Worksâ€Â, that they automatically think that one is trying to earn salvation? I mean, c’mon…

Why don’t we just leave it with Ephesians 2:10…
For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

What would happen if we quoted that verse every time we thought about Ephesians 2:8-9? Do you think that our view of good works might change?

Do you think that it is wrong to lead by example? To try and live life according to how we were designed to live? I mean, I don't think it's wrong to express our faith with tangible effects? You see, we feed the poor because it's the right thing to do, not because were looking for some prize or pat on the back and if we need a bible to tell us to feed the poor, the may the Lord have extra mercy on us... We help others because we have compassion on them. We extend our wealth to the poor and needy because we realize that we have been blessed, so that we can be a blessing to others. None of this is focused on self, but rather focused on the needs of others. Jesus was a servant who gave his life in service to God. Jesus made the tough choices to do what was right in God's eyes and to put his desires aside. Think being a Christian is easy all the time? I'd re-think that thought...

The reason I ask is because you throwing Eph 2:8-9 out there kind of came out of left field. I do pray that you’ve not become a critic.

And yes, I noticed how you summarized Eph 2:8 to make faith the gift… though I disagree, I also do not see that as a salvation issue either.

Peace be with you.

 

[Drew]

On the matter of Ephesians 2:8-9: I think that verse 11 argues strongly that Paul is not even talking about "good works" at all in verses 8 and 9 - he is talking about Torah in particular and is saying that ethnic Jewishness is not salvific. He is not, I think, trying to say you cannot be justified by doing "good things", since he says the opposite in Romans 2:7.

Here is verse 11 of Ephesians 2:

Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men) 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ

Note how he is basically making the case the Gentiles have been "grafted into" Israel. I think my position on this makes the whole account more coherent. First, in verses 8 and 9, Paul says "listen you Jews, works of Torah, i.e. Jewish ethnicity, is not the basis of salvation". Then in verse 11 he similarly "rebukes" the Gentiles by effectively saying "it is only by grace that you have been welcomed into "true Israel".

And then notice how he concludes the chapter:

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit

He is talking about ethnic Jews and Gentiles when he says "create in himself one man out of the two".

These last 2 texts are even more evidence that Paul clearly believes that "true" Israel consists of both Jew and Gentiles and it is this "true" Israel that is the recipient of the covenant promises. To repeat:

12remember that at that time you (Gentiles-my insertion) were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise....13But now.....

I think the Scriptures are clear - and I think that I agree with Veritas here - "true Israel", "Israel according to the Spirit" is the church, and it is the church that is the recipient of the covenant blessings, not ethnic Israel.

So while we Gentiles all owe ehtnic Israel a great debt, and while she was in a sense "cast away for the sake of our reconciliation", the Scriptures do not suggest that she is promised anything special. All the covenant blessings have been made over to "Israel according to the Spirit".

Does this means ethnic Jews are on the outside? Of course not. Like all humanity, they are invited to the party. And Paul more than anyone wants to see Jews in the church:

For if their (ethnic Israel's) rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

 

[Veritas]

....now that we are thoroughly off topic... oh well.

Jeff, I thought you were saying that salvation was dependant on "doing what's right in God's eyes". That's why I mentioned what I did.

I was thinking of Ephesians 2:10 with what I said. I think its good to lead by example, good to live life how we are designed to, and good to express our faith with tangible effects. My focus is on God first, and then others. I help others because God helped me.

I agree that being a Christian is not easy; however, I believe salvation is. It's too easy for the world to understand, I think. And this is why I stress it when I can. This is what I believe sets Christianity apart from all other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Judiasm, Islam, etc. etc....). I think it's very easy fall into believing that WE earn or maintain salvation somehow.

Drew, Jeff, is this what you are saying?

 

[bibleberean]

I never said that in the church that there is a separation of Jew and Gentile.

Ephesians 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Ephesians 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

I said that Israel according to the flesh will yet be saved and that the church is separate from Israel which is currently under a curse but will not be in the future.

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Jacob is currently in a state of ungodliness.

Romans 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Romans 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they (They being Israel) are enemies for your sakes (The Church): but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

But back to the topic. I believe God has gatherd Jacob back into the land that He promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob unconverted to bring them through the "time of Jacob's trouble" The Great Tribulation".

That being said I would like to conclude by saying that I stand by the nation of Israel and against the savage butchers that surround it.

If you look at the cartoon carefully you will see that the Palestinian soldier takes cover behind the child he should be protecting while the Israeli soldier shields the child he does protect behind him.

The Israeli soldier is not pointing his rifle at the child in the carriage but at the savage behind it.

That is why I believe Israel is the good guy. I am going to continue to state my case. Those of you who don't agree may state yours.

You have a God given right to be wrong. Be it far from me to deny you that right. 8-)

 

[Drew]

With respect to Romans 11:26:

26And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob

the readers need to know that this is not necessarily a reference to ethnic Israel. A superficial reading rather obvioulsy leads to this conclusion. After all, Paul uses the word "Israel" so how could he not be referring to anything other than "national Israel"?

This is where one needs to look at the entire set of Paul's writings and ask whether he ever uses the term "Israel" to refer to something other than ethnic Israel.

And we find that he indeed does "re-define" the term Israel.

In Romans 9:

For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring

In Romans 2:

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code

In Romans 4:

Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspringâ€â€not only to those who are of the law (i.e. ethnic Jews) but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: "I have made you a father of many nations

In Galatians 6:

Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation. 16Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God

Now, of course, Paul also uses the term "Israel" to refer to "ethnic Jews".

My point is that one cannot simply assume that, in Romans 11:26, Paul is making a statement about ethnic Israel undergoing a mass scale salvation sometime in the future. One actually needs to mount an argument that "Israel" here is intended to denote ethnic Israel.

I have posted part of an argument to the effect that in this verse, he is referring to the "true Israel". Perhaps I will post more on this.

 

[stovebolts]

....now that we are thoroughly off topic... oh well.

Jeff, I thought you were saying that salvation was dependant on "doing what's right in God's eyes". That's why I mentioned what I did.

Well Craig, if I squint my eyes and look really hard to the right, I can see how you misunderstood me :
Man, I think I just pulled a muscle! :

 

[bibleberean]

1. Nationhood and Jerusalem. Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C, 2,000 years before the rise of Islam.

2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C., the Jews have had dominion over the land for 1,000 years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the Muslim conquest in 635 A.D. lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Qur'an (Koran).

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be about the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, the Arabs are the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.

13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict: The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended herself each time and won.

14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with weapons. [See Fatah Charter/Constitution.]

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The United Nations (U.N.) Record on Israel and the Arabs: Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.

17. Of the 690 U.N. General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.

18. The U.N. was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting their holy sites at the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

The largest war in History will be fought over a little piece fo real estate no bigger than New Jeresey.

It has no strategic or geographical significance to the world. That piece of ground is Israel and Jerusalem.

This is a miracle and a sign of the soon coming of Jesus Christ.

Israel will call upon Christ be converted and be delivered from all her enemies.