BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Eschatology => Topic started by: RandyPNW on July 07, 2021, 12:31:09 PM
-
I'm Postrib and also believe in the future salvation of national Israel. I think it's important to state this because many Postribs reject Israel in prophecy altogether, or reinterpret it to apply to the international Church.
Let me say, first of all, that there is a difference between the biblical view of national salvation and the biblical view of individual salvation. National salvation has more to do with the survival of the entire society rather than with spiritual salvation.
But these things are obviously tied together. God said that without spirituality and without obedience, a nation will not be saved. It will ultimately perish or suffer significant judgment.
Many get confused about this because they think that saving a society is not important in relation to saving an individual. Actually, both are important to God--both nations and individuals. The nation protects the individual, and thus provides a healthy spiritual climate for the individual if the nation is itself generally spiritual, or tolerant of spirituality.
The problem with Postribs who deny the place of national Israel in prophecy is that God did indeed promise this to Abraham. And God doesn't break His promises. Though the Early Church gave up hope in Israel's future salvation because Israel didn't repent, this does not mean that after many generations God cannot begin again with Israel, and ultimately refine her through the fires of His judgment.
So I do believe in Israel's future salvation, and also in the salvation of other nations--primarily Christian nations. Like Israel, many Christian nations have fallen on hard times, and have come under divine punishment. If Israel can be saved, so can these former Christian nations.
So where in the Bible do we see the salvation of Christian nations? We don't, because when the Bible was written Christian nations did not yet exist. And yet God promised them to Abraham. He was promised he would become father of a multitude of nations.
The problem I see with Pretribs and their Dispensationalism is that not only are they wrong about Pretrib itself, but also wrong to emphasize Israel's salvation through the lens of OT realities. They see Israel as returning to the Law, and they see Israel as still an exclusive nation in a sea of pagan nations.
That reality has changed, although some of it remains true. Whereas the nations ultimately capitulate to paganism it is not true that other nations did not become nations of God. Many nations have become Christian nations. They just ultimately fall, as Israel did. All nations do, ultimately, turn against Israel.
So the idea is to recognize that Israel is no longer alone in prophecy, and the future will involve not just Israel's recovery, but also the recovery of many other nations, formerly of faith. And most certainly, there will be no return to the Law. If all nations oppose Israel, they also oppose the idea of "Christian nations." They will stand not in opposition to the practice of the Law of Moses, but rather, in opposition to Christ and to those promised to Christ.
-
You do know there are "non" dispensationalist, pretribulation believers, don't you?
-
They see Israel as returning to the Law
I hate to be "that guy", but the bible does say that.
For example, Deuteronomy 30:8, referring to end times- "You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today." Or Ezekiel 37:24 "They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees." Or Ezekiel 36:27 "And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." And so on.
-
They see Israel as returning to the Law
I hate to be "that guy", but the bible does say that.
For example, Deuteronomy 30:8, referring to end times- "You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today." Or Ezekiel 37:24 "They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees." Or Ezekiel 36:27 "And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them." And so on.
There's a good chance you know, Fenris, that some Jews view a change in the Law in the Messianic Kingdom? Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin. Now that we believe Messiah has come and has made atonement for sin, law exists, but not in the context of requiring a future atonement for sin.
This changes the need for passage through walls that separate God and Man, so that there is no need for priesthood, sacrifices, and temple any longer. At any rate, those don't exist anymore, regardless.
What I don't do is fault the perennial Jewish perspective that there is one true God who cares about nations, who makes covenants with His People. And I certainly don't fault any concern to have established, black and white moral laws.
Unfortunately, I associate "Jews" today with liberals, who I might characterize as those who want to define law as an "individual thing." I understand why those of a minority religion might want to do this. But I do appreciate Jews more who consistently rely upon black and white law. You perhaps fall into this latter category?
-
Randy, we're getting on the borderline of being antisemitic. Ease up a bit there.
-
Now that we believe Messiah has come and has made atonement for sin, law exists, but not in the context of requiring a future atonement for sin.
How does this square with the numerous statements in the Torah that its priesthood, sacrifices, and rituals were eternal?
Exodus 31:17 It (the Sabbath) is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.
Leviticus 10:9 Drink no wine or strong drink, neither you nor your sons, when you enter the tent of meeting, that you may not die; it is a statute forever throughout your generations.
Leviticus 16:34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the people of Israel once in the year for all their sins.
Leviticus 23:41 You shall keep it as a festival to the LORD seven days in the year; you shall keep it in the seventh month as a statute forever throughout your generations.
Leviticus 24:3 Aaron shall set it up in the tent of meeting, outside the curtain of the covenant, to burn from evening to morning before the LORD regularly; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.
Numbers 18:19 All the holy offerings that the Israelites present to the lord I have given to you, together with your sons and daughters, as a perpetual due; it is a covenant of salt forever before the LORD for you and your descendants as well.
Deuteronomy 4:2 You must neither add anything to what I command you nor take away anything from it, but keep the commandments of the LORD your God with which I am charging you.
Deuteronomy 12:32 You must diligently observe everything that I command you; do not add to it or take anything from it.
Like... if God wanted to tell Israel that their laws were an everlasting command, never to be revoked, never to be "transformed", never to be terminated once they were "spiritually fulfilled" by a messiah centuries later... how else could he have possibly said it than "this is an everlasting command", "you must keep these commands forever in all your generations", "do not ever change these commands"? Saying that Jesus abrogated these laws because he abstractly "fulfilled" them in his crucifixion really doesn't fit with these statements.
The idea among some Christians that Jesus will restore Torah observance among Jews seems the most cohesive with what the Torah clearly says about its own everlasting perpetuity, in addition to Jesus himself saying he didn't come to abolish the law, but to uphold and keep it.
-
There's a good chance you know, Fenris, that some Jews view a change in the Law in the Messianic Kingdom?
I'm not aware of any changes in the law. Did you read the passages I posted?
Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.
That sells God's word so short. Just a set of arbitrary rules that we can fall short on? Love your neighbor, love the stranger, give charity, care for the widow and orphan, and on and on, just to show the need for atonement? No. No way. These laws contain essential truth about who God is and what He does, and how we are to emulate Him.
Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.
Which, weirdly enough, come from the very bible that you say doesn't apply anymore.
Unfortunately, I associate "Jews" today with liberals, who I might characterize as those who want to define law as an "individual thing." I understand why those of a minority religion might want to do this. But I do appreciate Jews more who consistently rely upon black and white law. You perhaps fall into this latter category?
Religious Jews by and large are not liberal. But that's neither here nor there and isn't relevant to this discussion.
-
Like... if God wanted to tell Israel that their laws were an everlasting command, never to be revoked, never to be "transformed", never to be terminated once they were "spiritually fulfilled" by a messiah centuries later... how else could he have possibly said it than "this is an everlasting command", "you must keep these commands forever in all your generations", "do not ever change these commands"?
Well, this is the crux of it. It's one of the reasons that Christianity is a hard sell to observant Jews.
-
Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.
That sells God's word so short. Just a set of arbitrary rules that we can fall short on?
It's a pretty obvious contradiction to Deuteronomy 30:11 -- "Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away."
To say it was actually -- secretly -- designed from the very start to be a demonstration of how it's actually "impossible" to perfectly keep (something the Torah acknowledges and provides instructions for!) and therefore necessary to replace with something very different necessarily makes Deuteronomy 30:11 a purposeful deception.
-
It's a pretty obvious contradiction to Deuteronomy 30:11 -- "Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away."
Very well said.
Also Deuteronomy 4 comes to mind, which you partially mentioned earlier-
Now, Israel, hear the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land the Lord, the God of your ancestors, is giving you. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you. You saw with your own eyes what the Lord did at Baal Peor. The Lord your God destroyed from among you everyone who followed the Baal of Peor, but all of you who held fast to the Lord your God are still alive today. See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the Lord my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?
This says that the laws are positive, and provided by God to uplift us.
-
Randy, we're getting on the borderline of being antisemitic. Ease up a bit there.
Sorry Parson, I'm not in the least Antisemitic. Perhaps I lack tact? If there's something that I said that appears to be Antisemitic, I'd sure like to know what it is?
-
There's a good chance you know, Fenris, that some Jews view a change in the Law in the Messianic Kingdom?
I'm not aware of any changes in the law. Did you read the passages I posted?
Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.
That sells God's word so short. Just a set of arbitrary rules that we can fall short on? Love your neighbor, love the stranger, give charity, care for the widow and orphan, and on and on, just to show the need for atonement? No. No way. These laws contain essential truth about who God is and what He does, and how we are to emulate Him.
Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.
Which, weirdly enough, come from the very bible that you say doesn't apply anymore.
Unfortunately, I associate "Jews" today with liberals, who I might characterize as those who want to define law as an "individual thing." I understand why those of a minority religion might want to do this. But I do appreciate Jews more who consistently rely upon black and white law. You perhaps fall into this latter category?
Religious Jews by and large are not liberal. But that's neither here nor there and isn't relevant to this discussion.
Yes, I've read where some Jews believe that some laws in the future Kingdom will no longer be needed, which is akin to what Christians say is true today, believing that Jesus fulfilled the need for atonement.
You really misunderstand me, though. I never meant to say that loving God and others was designed to show the need for atonement. No, I was referring to many of the laws under the Law of Moses that demonstrated a need for cleansing rituals in order to present themselves before a holy God. I believe atonement is key to obtaining eternal purification so that there are no longer any obstacles between God and men.
Tied in with atonement are, as I said, rituals of cleansing and purification, and rituals of sacrifice. Obviously, when one is purified through legal atonement, what need any more to distinguish, symbolically, between clean and unclean foods?
I agree that *religious Jews* may be less libertine than liberal Jews, who are less religious. But Jews identify as a minority, whether as an ethnic group or as a religious group, and would likely want to see Christianity be tolerant. This would call for liberalizing Christians laws, right?
I would add that I don't reject the Jewish Bible, our OT Scriptures. I just reject the Old Covenant, which was exclusively for Jews and prior to Christ's atonement. To remain in that covenant is to fail to obtain the purpose for which it existed, which was to bring final atonement both for Israel and for all nations.
-
Christians believe that the laws governing Israel, pre-Messiah, were designed to show the need for atonement for sin.
That sells God's word so short. Just a set of arbitrary rules that we can fall short on?
It's a pretty obvious contradiction to Deuteronomy 30:11 -- "Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away."
To say it was actually -- secretly -- designed from the very start to be a demonstration of how it's actually "impossible" to perfectly keep (something the Torah acknowledges and provides instructions for!) and therefore necessary to replace with something very different necessarily makes Deuteronomy 30:11 a purposeful deception.
I don't see the connection. How is saying that the Jewish Law is outdated, but still a matter of relevant black and white morality, depreciating moral commands from God? What is outdated is the fact that atonement has already been legally accomplished, rendering the need for laws of purification unnecessary. Having come under Christ's atonement there is no longer any need for rituals that beg for purification and acceptance!
-
You do know there are "non" dispensationalist, pretribulation believers, don't you?
No, I didn't know that. Please tell me more!
-
Like... if God wanted to tell Israel that their laws were an everlasting command, never to be revoked, never to be "transformed", never to be terminated once they were "spiritually fulfilled" by a messiah centuries later... how else could he have possibly said it than "this is an everlasting command", "you must keep these commands forever in all your generations", "do not ever change these commands"?
Well, this is the crux of it. It's one of the reasons that Christianity is a hard sell to observant Jews.
The Law was "everlasting" in the sense of being in continuous application, as long as the nation continued to be faithful to their God. Obviously, when Israel turned to idols, the laws ceased to be of application to them, and they were cursed almost as if they weren't God's people anymore.
The effort to promote everlasting righteousness is the entire purpose of atonement, to restore a fallen people to a place where only the righteous remain. And the righteous have to be enabled to obtain a new immortal existence where sin no longer exists.
In Jer 31 we read that the Law of Moses would be replaced with something more secure.
Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
-
Did you read the passages I posted?
Deuteronomy 30:8
Ezekiel 37:24
Ezekiel 36:27
Yes, laws and decrees remain after the element of atonement is satisfied. Once atonement and its requirements are removed from the Law, what we have is the original commandment to Man, to live in God's image.
Temple, priesthood, and sacrifice cease to be of any concern--they all had to do with reconciling Man to God. Atonement meets that need for all time in Christ.
We still have need to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength. And we still need to respect and care for our neighbors. There is still God's Law after the Law of Moses is completed in the life and death of Christ.
-
Deuteronomy 30:8
Ezekiel 37:24
Ezekiel 36:27
Yes, laws and decrees remain after the element of atonement is satisfied. Once atonement and its requirements are removed from the Law, what we have is the original commandment to Man, to live in God's image.
So the law is still in effect. Interesting. Because you've been saying the exact opposite.
-
Yes, I've read where some Jews believe that some laws in the future Kingdom will no longer be needed,
Unless you can provide a source this is just hearsay. Because I don't know any Jews who believe that.
You really misunderstand me, though. I never meant to say that loving God and others was designed to show the need for atonement. No, I was referring to many of the laws under the Law of Moses
Referring to the bible as "the law of Moses" also sells it short. Because not one law in the bible was invented by Moses. They all come from God.
that demonstrated a need for cleansing rituals in order to present themselves before a holy God.
You're confusing two topics. There are laws of ritual impurity, say coming into contact with a human corpse, that have nothing whatsoever to do with sin.
I believe atonement is key to obtaining eternal purification so that there are no longer any obstacles between God and men.
There are no obstacles now. Psalm 145: The Lord is near to all who call upon Him
Tied in with atonement are, as I said, rituals of cleansing and purification, and rituals of sacrifice. Obviously, when one is purified through legal atonement, what need any more to distinguish, symbolically, between clean and unclean foods?
Let's look at Leviticus 11
You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be defiled by them. For I am the Lord your God. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves, and you shall be holy; for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creeps on the earth. For I am the Lord who brings you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God. You shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
‘This is the law of the animals and the birds and every living creature that moves in the waters, and of every creature that creeps on the earth, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten.’ ”
I mean, this seems pretty straightforward. God is saying to be holy and not eat these animals. That's it. Nothing about atonement or anything else that you're saying. Because the law isn't just about atonement. It's about uplifting man and making us holy. Any of us. All of us.
You're looking at the law in a completely different way. Saying it's negative.
I agree that *religious Jews* may be less libertine than liberal Jews, who are less religious. But Jews identify as a minority,
What do you call a group that numbers only 13 million out of a world population of almost 8 billion? That numbers 6 million out of a US population of 330 million? A minority. That doesn't mean I'm lining up for government handouts. It means I desire that my rights be respected.
whether as an ethnic group or as a religious group, and would likely want to see Christianity be tolerant. This would call for liberalizing Christians laws, right?
How Christians practice their faith is none of my business. Just like how Jews practice their faith is none of yours.
I would add that I don't reject the Jewish Bible, our OT Scriptures. I just reject the Old Covenant, which was exclusively for Jews
Bingo! That's how Jews see it, too.
-
The Law was "everlasting" in the sense of being in continuous application, as long as the nation continued to be faithful to their God. Obviously, when Israel turned to idols, the laws ceased to be of application to them
This is a very interesting comment. Because the bible mentions punishments and curses when Jews uphold the law. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 are terrifying to read. All the more horrible because those curses came true during Jewish history, all of them. But what they don't say is that the law will ever stop being in effect. No matter how disobedient the Jews were, God still expected them return and to uphold the law. There's no opt-out clause. To say that "when Israel turned to idols, the laws ceased to be of application to them" is completely unsupported by the bible.
In Jer 31 we read that the Law of Moses would be replaced with something more secure.
That isn't what is says at all.
Jer 31.31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
Ok, so first we need to give this quote context. You picked two verses from an entire chapter. What does the rest of the chapter say? Starting from verse 7:
This is what the Lord says:
“Sing with joy for Jacob;
shout for the foremost of the nations.
Make your praises heard, and say,
‘Lord, save your people,
the remnant of Israel.’
See, I will bring them from the land of the north
and gather them from the ends of the earth.
Among them will be the blind and the lame,
expectant mothers and women in labor;
a great throng will return.
They will come with weeping;
they will pray as I bring them back.
I will lead them beside streams of water
on a level path where they will not stumble,
because I am Israel’s father,
and Ephraim is my firstborn son.
“Hear the word of the Lord, you nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
‘He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
For the Lord will deliver Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.
They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion;
they will rejoice in the bounty of the Lord—
the grain, the new wine and the olive oil,
the young of the flocks and herds.
They will be like a well-watered garden,
and they will sorrow no more.
Then young women will dance and be glad,
young men and old as well.
I will turn their mourning into gladness;
I will give them comfort and joy instead of sorrow.
I will satisfy the priests with abundance,
and my people will be filled with my bounty,”
declares the Lord.
Wow, it's amazing! God is going to gather the Jewish exiles back to the land. He's going to watch over us. What else?
“I have surely heard Ephraim’s moaning:
‘You disciplined me like an unruly calf,
and I have been disciplined.
Restore me, and I will return,
because you are the Lord my God.
After I strayed,
I repented;
after I came to understand,
I beat my breast.
I was ashamed and humiliated
because I bore the disgrace of my youth.’
Is not Ephraim my dear son,
the child in whom I delight?
Though I often speak against him,
I still remember him.
Therefore my heart yearns for him;
I have great compassion for him,”
declares the Lord.
The exiles were punished by suffering in the diaspora. And through that suffering, they repented. And God still loves them and has great compassion for them.
This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: “When I bring them back from captivity, the people in the land of Judah and in its towns will once again use these words: ‘The Lord bless you, you prosperous city, you sacred mountain.’ People will live together in Judah and all its towns—farmers and those who move about with their flocks. I will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint.”
Amazing!
And now we come to your quote, deep in the chapter. So first let's look at the verses you mention, and then more, for even greater context-
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
OK, so first of all, this "new covenant" is with who? "The people of Israel and the people of Judah". Not all the nations in the world. It would have been easy for God to add this, but He did not. Secondly, it says "new covenant" not "new law". In fact the following verses make this very clear-
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts...."
It's the same law. Except that we'll do it by our nature, because it will be written in our hearts and minds.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
Knowledge of God will be universal.
And one final promise-
This is what the Lord says,
he who appoints the sun
to shine by day,
who decrees the moon and stars
to shine by night,
who stirs up the sea
so that its waves roar—
the Lord Almighty is his name:
“Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,”
declares the Lord,
“will Israel ever cease
being a nation before me.”
This is what the Lord says:
“Only if the heavens above can be measured
and the foundations of the earth below be searched out
will I reject all the descendants of Israel
because of all they have done,”
declares the Lord.
Which, interestingly enough, also shows up in Leviticus 26, after all the curses-
I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.’”
"In spite of all this, I will not destroy them or break my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God."
-
I don't see the connection. How is saying that the Jewish Law is outdated, but still a matter of relevant black and white morality, depreciating moral commands from God?
The Torah saying of itself that its laws are "everlasting", "forever", and "perpetual" is directly contradictory to the Christian idea that the Torah's laws will come to an end. Calling the Torah "outdated" so that it should no longer to be obeyed is the very opposite of the Torah saying it must be obeyed "through all your generations".
The Law was "everlasting" in the sense of being in continuous application,
My previous question was not rhetorical. I'm looking for a real answer to this: If God wanted to say that the laws in the Torah are literally "everlasting", are literally to be kept "forever", and are literally meant to be obeyed "through all your generations", and that they were never to be "added" to or "removed" from ever -- so that by default the notion of a messiah abrogating most of the laws would be obviously contradictory to what he had said -- what else could he have said to make it any clearer?
Because the Torah is really clearly saying exactly that, so the only way to get around it is to start changing the definitions of basic words to arrive at a predetermined result. You're saying "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Take the example of the annual Day of Atonement sacrifice for the sins of the nation. Hebrews says it is inherently flawed and needed replaced with the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus. But the Torah says the Day of Atonement sacrifice is "an everlasting statute". There's no clearer way the Torah could have said "keep this law forever" than it already does.
as long as the nation continued to be faithful to their God. Obviously, when Israel turned to idols, the laws ceased to be of application to them, and they were cursed almost as if they weren't God's people anymore.
The laws don't cease to be applicable, the laws contain provisions for this situation in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: increasingly severe discipline, the last of which is national exile, followed by restoration of the people to their land and the restoration of obedience to the laws that were broken.
The effort to promote everlasting righteousness is the entire purpose of atonement, to restore a fallen people to a place where only the righteous remain.
Again, this is contrary to what the Torah itself says. The Torah assumes that people will occasionally falter in keeping the laws perfectly. The Torah admits that absolutely perfect obedience to its laws is neither possible nor a reasonable expectation to have. So it provides provisions on how to get back in a right standing with God and continue obeying its laws.
-
Yea, I know you're sincerely asking the question about the apparent "everlasting" element of the Law. As I told Fenris, a number of Jewish rabbis have admitted that with a change in circumstance, the Law itself changes its demands. For example, when the Messianic Kingdom comes, certain things will no longer be required. And obviously, when Israel went into the Babylonian exile, God never expected them to observe animal sacrifice at a temple that was no longer there.
So the argument is that God tolerates the abrogation of legal observance for awhile, while discipline is in effect, but a return to observing the Law is always expected. You say that because the Law is "everlasting."
But my claim is that the OT Prophets claimed that there would indeed come a breaking point, at which the Law would no longer be applicable. It was referred to as a "divorce," as becoming "not my people," as coming under a "new covenant." You ignore all that.
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time. An "everlasting" agreement would be terminated. It was "everlasting" only in the sense that it was meant to be perpetual--not eternal.
There is an element of God's covenant with Israel that was eternal, and that had to do with what He promised to do unconditionally. Israel would have some sort of agreement with God forever, though that was never guaranteed to be by an agreement that was conditional.
So we must recognize that there was a conditional aspect to the Law, as well as an unconditional "eternal" aspect to the Law. This explains why God regularly said His Law was "everlasting." It would succeed, but obviously not through the part of the Law that was conditional, and susceptible to failure.
The confusion comes when we render "the Law" the exact equivalent of "God's Word." They are not always the same. The Law of Moses was a provisional agreement in the process of getting Israel to obtain their eternal inheritance. God's Word guaranteed Israel's eternal inheritance. But the Law was just a temporary step to get there.
So the Law was temporary, but it had a perpetual feature to it, namely compliance with God's eternal Law and obtaining His eternal promise. The Law of Moses *contained* God's eternal Law, but but was only temporarily an aspect of God's eternal Law, in particular for Israel. Once the Law of Moses had passed, God's eternal Law remained in force, without the conditional provisions that applied only to Israel. I'll try to deal with this later, when I have more time.
-
Yea, I know you're sincerely asking the question about the apparent "everlasting" element of the Law. As I told Fenris, a number of Jewish rabbis have admitted that with a change in circumstance, the Law itself changes its demands.
Whoa now. That's completely different from saying that after the messiah comes, the law will no longer be in effect". If there's no Temple, God doesn't expect sacrifice. That doesn't mean that there will never be sacrifice again. When the second temple was built, sacrifice resumed. When the third temple is built, sacrifice will resume again. Ezekiel goes into exhaustive detail about this.
You're going about stating the Jewish perspective in a very disingenuous way. If I'm not a farmer, then the bible's laws on farming don't apply to me. That doesn't mean they don't apply anymore, period. There's no reason and no biblical text that would leave any Jewish person to believe that the bible's laws will be suspended at some future point. The opposite. I mean, look at Leviticus 23:
But on the tenth of this seventh month, it is a day of atonement, it shall be a holy occasion for you; you shall afflict yourselves, and you shall offer up a fire offering to the Lord. You shall not perform any work on that very day, for it is a day of atonement, for you to gain atonement before the Lord, your God. For any person who will not be afflicted on that very day, shall be cut off from its people. And any person who performs any work on that very day I will destroy that person from amidst its people. You shall not perform any work. This is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.
Let's look at that last verse again: This is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.
Eternal statute. Throughout your generations. In all your dwelling places.
If that doesn't mean "permanent", then what would? Give me the magic phrase that the bible could use that would mean "permanent" to you.
So the argument is that God tolerates the abrogation of legal observance for awhile
No. That's not what it means. The law is not "abrogated". The conditions to fulfill it simply don't exist at a point in time. The law remains in effect however. Again, if I'm not a farmer, then the laws on farming don't apply to me. That doesn't mean they don't apply at all. If the conditions on the ground change (see what I did there?) then those laws could apply to me.
But my claim is that the OT Prophets claimed that there would indeed come a breaking point, at which the Law would no longer be applicable. It was referred to as a "divorce," as becoming "not my people," as coming under a "new covenant." You ignore all that.
See my commentary on Jeremiah 31. The "new covenant" has the same law.
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
You'll have to show me where this is in the bible. Because I've shown the bible saying the exact opposite. Lev 26, for example "In spite of all this, I will not destroy them or break my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God."
The confusion comes when we render "the Law" the exact equivalent of "God's Word." They are not always the same. The Law of Moses was a provisional agreement in the process of getting Israel to obtain their eternal inheritance.
Again, you'll have to show me where the bible calls it "provisional".
So the Law was temporary
You haven't cited a single bible verse that says this, or anything like this.
-
If that doesn't mean "permanent", then what would? Give me the magic phrase that the bible could use that would mean "permanent" to you.
I've asked this twice now as well, and in both replies my question was ignored.
When the Torah records that God declared "these laws are everlasting, forever, perpetual, for all generations, never to be added to or removed from", that is as clear as it can possibly get.
There is no way to answer the question without directly confirming that the Torah already says it.
-
But my claim is that the OT Prophets claimed that there would indeed come a breaking point, at which the Law would no longer be applicable. It was referred to as a "divorce," as becoming "not my people," as coming under a "new covenant." You ignore all that.
You provide an example with the "not my people" quote from Hosea. So let's look at that.
Hosea 1:9 Then the LORD said, "Name him Lo-ammi, for you are not my people and I am not your God."
Alright, we've got the part you're saying: the "break" or "divorce." What does the very next verse say?
Hosea 1:10 Yet the number of the people of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which can be neither measured nor numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people", it shall be said to them, "Children of the living God."
"Yet". A reversal of what came before. Restoration. Where it was said nope, it will be said yep.
Let's look at the next chapter. The first 12 verses are rough, where God disowns his wife Israel and throws her to his enemies. It culminates with God directly saying
Hosea 2:13 I will punish her
Very next verse?
Hosea 2:14 Therefore, I will now persuade her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her.
Restoration. It even mentions a new covenant will be a part of this restoration!
Hosea 2:18-19 I will make for you a covenant on that day ... And I will take you for my wife forever
And he again declares the reversal of "not my people".
Hosea 2:23 And I will have pity on Lo-ruhamah, and I will say to Lo-ammi, "You are my people"; and he shall say, "You are my God."
I'm not "ignoring" the idea that the prophets talk about a divorce, disowning, or rejection. I disagree that your interpretation is correct, because the Torah itself lays out provisions for when its laws are broken: disciplinary punishment because of disobedience, then a later restoration accompanied by obedience. Even the prophets acknowledge this is the case. When you leave out the second half of the story, which the Torah and the prophets are really up-front with, it looks really conspicuous.
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
You're going to need to provide a chapter and verse from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy. I can't think of a single point that says what you're claiming it says.
-
Hosea definitely shows the turn around from "Not My People" to "My People Again." What this shows is that there is a definitive *divorce*--a definitive rupture in the covenant relationship between God and Israel.
Clearly, this was not just a marital separation, and a reconciliation. Rather, this was a divorce, and a renewed union following.
And this is as Jer 31 indicated, a *new covenant* different from the Law of Moses and would reestablish relations between God and Israel. A *new* covenant--a *different* covenant.
-
Clearly, this was not just a marital separation, and a reconciliation. Rather, this was a divorce, and a renewed union following.
Right... but my point is, the restoration half is the part you conspicuously leave out. The promise of restoration is in the Torah and in the prophets. It is not a "breaking point" in the way you tried to say before; it is not a permanent abrogation of the Torah's laws opening the way for a messiah to replace it with something entirely different, it is part of the Torah's laws.
-
Clearly, this was not just a marital separation, and a reconciliation. Rather, this was a divorce, and a renewed union following.
Right... but my point is, the restoration half is the part you conspicuously leave out. The promise of restoration is in the Torah and in the prophets. It is not a "breaking point" in the way you tried to say before; it is not a permanent abrogation of the Torah's laws opening the way for a messiah to replace it with something entirely different, it is part of the Torah's laws.
On the contrary, it is the "restoration" part I'm directly addressing. The restoration is not necessarily the restoration of that which was *completely broken.*
Once there is a final divorce, there is no continuity with the former marriage--what is destroyed cannot be restored. A reunion can be reconsummated, but the old marriage is gone, along with any features associated with it.
If a new marriage to Israel was wished to include the Law of Moses once again, that would've been possible. But the Law is *not necessary* to a relationship in which that Law had been broken and dissolved.
Let's say I had a relationship with a bank in which I owed 100K. Once that debt failed, and reparations had been negotiated, a new agreement with the bank does not necessitate a restoration of a 100K loan.
That agreement had been settled, and a new relationship with the same bank takes on a new form with a different loan and newly-determined conditions. Even if I get a new loan for 100K with the same bank, it is *not* a renewal of or continuation with the former 100K loan.
Once Israel and God had dissolved their partnership under the Law, and had become estranged, their relationship could be restored. But the former partnership had been dissolved--it could not be restored. A new relationship could begin, but the old partnership, with all of its requirements, was gone.
The Torah could be renewed with a restored relationship. But Jer 31 shows that following a complete divorce any new laws associated with a renewed relationship would be different from the original Law of Moses. The relationship is restored, but not the original Law.
-
And this is as Jer 31 indicated, a *new covenant* different from the Law of Moses and would reestablish relations between God and Israel. A *new* covenant--a *different* covenant.
It says what this *different covenant* is in the plain text.
Verse 33-34 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord.
-
Once Israel and God had dissolved their partnership under the Law, and had become estranged, their relationship could be restored.
You know, this "divorce" was only between God and "Israel", that is, the northern ten tribes. Who are indeed lost to history after Assyria conquered them. On the other hand, there's no text of God "divorcing" Judah. Quite the contrary, God still wrought miracles for Judah and did not allow Assyria to conquer them during king Hezekiah's time (which was after Assyria conquered Israel). And the people of Judah have not been lost to history, even after two diasporas, the second lasting nearly 20 centuries. Things that make one think.
-
Once Israel and God had dissolved their partnership under the Law, and had become estranged, their relationship could be restored.
You know, this "divorce" was only between God and "Israel", that is, the northern ten tribes. Who are indeed lost to history after Assyria conquered them. On the other hand, there's no text of God "divorcing" Judah. Quite the contrary, God still wrought miracles for Judah and did not allow Assyria to conquer them during king Hezekiah's time (which was after Assyria conquered Israel). And the people of Judah have not been lost to history, even after two diasporas, the second lasting nearly 20 centuries. Things that make one think.
Well, I am pleased to see that the it was the ten Northern tribes that were divorced from God and exiled. They are lost to human history but not to God. Amos 9:9 and their exile is for a set period. Ezekiel 4:4-5
It is them who have accepted Christianity, even though they didn't know their origins. Isaiah 51:1-2
God will make a new Covenant with them when they go back to their heritage. Hebrews 8:8-12
Judah has been thrown out of the holy Land twice, but we see in Ezekiel 21:14 how the great Sword of slaughter will strike the three times. This third strike is prophesied in 20 + scriptures , Ezekiel 21:1-7, being a good example. Only a holy seed of Judah will rejoin their brethren. Isaiah 6:11-13, Romans 9:27
-
Well, I am pleased to see that the it was the ten Northern tribes that were divorced from God and exiled. They are lost to human history but not to God. Amos 9:9 and their exile is for a set period. Ezekiel 4:4-5
It is them who have accepted Christianity, even though they didn't know their origins.
We have Ethiopian Jews who claim descent from the tribe of Dan, we have Jews on the Indian subcontinent who claim descent from the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, so no, we don't know that they've accepted Christianity.
Judah has been thrown out of the holy Land twice, but we see in Ezekiel 21:14 how the great Sword of slaughter will strike the three times.
Reading the only verse in the chapter that interests you, yet again? It would be nice if you looked at the surrounding verses, even just once. Verse 19 specifically identifies the bearer of the sword: Son of man, mark out two roads for the sword of the king of Babylon to take
That's right, Babylon. As in, the national that carried out the first exile.
This third strike is prophesied in 20 + scriptures , Ezekiel 21:1-7, being a good example.
Ezekiel 21 is about Babylon. Again. There is no "third strike" except in your vivid imagination.
-
Once Israel and God had dissolved their partnership under the Law, and had become estranged, their relationship could be restored.
You know, this "divorce" was only between God and "Israel", that is, the northern ten tribes. Who are indeed lost to history after Assyria conquered them. On the other hand, there's no text of God "divorcing" Judah. Quite the contrary, God still wrought miracles for Judah and did not allow Assyria to conquer them during king Hezekiah's time (which was after Assyria conquered Israel). And the people of Judah have not been lost to history, even after two diasporas, the second lasting nearly 20 centuries. Things that make one think.
Yes, I've heard this argument before. It does appear to apply the "divorce" more definitively to the Northern Kingdom, which had abandoned worship in Jerusalem. But I think the inference of divorce would apply to Judah, as well, even though they were not lost to history.
In fact, I consider it a direct reference both to Israel and Judah, because as I said, Jer 31 identifies the recovery as a complete change, as in a new marriage following a divorce. The "divorce" is not mentioned there, but it is inferred as having taken place in several places in the Prophets.
Jer 2.20 “Long ago you broke off your yoke
and tore off your bonds;
you said, ‘I will not serve you!’
3.“If a man divorces his wife
and she leaves him and marries another man,
should he return to her again?
Would not the land be completely defiled?
But you have lived as a prostitute with many lovers—
would you now return to me?”
declares the Lord...
8 I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.
Isaiah here seems to address all Israel--not just the Northern Kingdom of Israel....
Isa 50.This is what the Lord says:
“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce
with which I sent her away?
Or to which of my creditors
did I sell you?
Because of your sins you were sold;
because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.
The reality is that the Northern Kingdom fell before the Southern Kingdom fell, but both Kingdoms ultimately fell because both had broken their marital bonds with God, having chosen as a people to follow after other gods. The language is pretty clear, and has to do with the reason God committed the kingdoms over to comprehensive judgments.
None of this meant that God could not forgive and start over again fresh. And this He did with the Southern Kingdom of Judah, having promised to unite all Israel together in a single nation once again. Many people from the Northern Kingdom had come down to live in Judah throughout the years, and so, the restoration of Judah under the Persian Empire was truly a restoration of the nation--not just a restoration of the tribe of Judah. All 12 tribes became part of the Jewish restoration, in my view.
-
The ten Northern tribes of Israel were exiled from their Land because they did not keep the Laws, as given to them through Moses. At present, in their dispersion, it is not a requirement that they keep the whole Law, only at least the ten Commandments. Hosea 9:1-7, Deuteronomy 28:64
Prophecy clearly states that after their return to the Holy Land, the Israelites, who are now every born again Christian, will then go back to observance of the Law. Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48.
Ezekiel 16:1-52..Your father was a Amorite and your mother was a Hittite...
The Lord says to Judah: Your sisters, Samaria and Sodom, never behaved as badly as you and your daughters have done. They grew proud and committed abominations, then I swept them away, as you know, but you are worse than them – you make your sisters look innocent! Now, you must bear your shame and humiliation.
This passage is a graphic allegory of the ‘adulteries’, that is the idol worship, of Judah: the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and of Samaria: the ten Northern tribes of Israel and of Sodom: the peoples to the South of Judah.
Ezekiel 16:53-59 I shall restore the fortunes of Sodom and Samaria and will restore you too, Judah at the same time. When you all rejoin, you will bear your shame and be disgraced for your iniquities. You were contemptuous of your sisters in the days of your pride and now the nations around you despise you. You, Judah must bear the consequences of your abominable conduct. The Lord says: I shall treat you as you deserve, because you violated an oath and made light of our Covenant.
Ezekiel 16:60-63 But I shall call to mind the Covenant that I made with you when you were young and will establish a new Covenant that will last forever. You will be ashamed when you receive your sisters, the elder and the younger. They will join you, but not on the basis of My Covenant with you. When I have pardoned you, you will remember and be so ashamed and humiliated that you will never open your mouth again. Jer. 3:11
Ref: REB, NIV, KJV.
The Jewish sages [Moshkovitz, Malbim and Abarbanel] say that the ‘sister’ peoples will be the most important part of the new Israelite nation after they all return and Judah will be subservient to Joseph. ‘Not by their Covenant’, means that the ten tribes will not convert to Judaism, but the Jews must become Christian. Jeremiah 12:14 They will be given true priests for the correct instruction in the Law and ordinances. Malachi 3:1-5
All over the world amongst some Christians there is an arousal in the direction of returning to ‘Hebrew roots’, meaning adopting Biblical injunctions and customs. This attempt to observe the Old Testament Laws sometimes takes the form of imitating aspects of Judaism, or applying their own innovations by a personal interpretation of what Scripture says. This movement of trying to ‘do Torah’, is especially noticeable among people who are identified as comprised to a significant degree as descendants of the ‘Lost ten Tribes’. The phenomenon of this searching for their Hebrew roots, seems to show an instinctive arousal amongst “Joseph”, and can be seen as a sign of the impending redemption of all Israel.
While the ‘Return to Hebrew roots’, is a positive sign of the times, just how far should a person who realizes their Israelite ancestry, go? The obligations of Joseph in our times should include; Justice, Honesty, Prayer and fasting, Bible study, being a good example to others, doing good works, no sexual immorality, no substance abuse, and read carefully what the prophets tell us about our future. 1 Peter 4:7
Legally, the onus of proof is on the claimant. Proof is required that another person has an obligation. This means that even if physically someone is descended from Israel or Judah, they cannot be obligated unless there is legal proof of that. We can only look forward the great Day, when the Lord will reveal exactly who His people are, their redemption and gathering into the Promised Land.
-
Yes, I've heard this argument before. It does appear to apply the "divorce" more definitively to the Northern Kingdom, which had abandoned worship in Jerusalem. But I think the inference of divorce would apply to Judah, as well, even though they were not lost to history.
So the actual text is important. Except when it isn't.
In fact, I consider it a direct reference both to Israel and Judah, because as I said, Jer 31 identifies the recovery as a complete change, as in a new marriage following a divorce. The "divorce" is not mentioned there,
So it's not mentioned there, but we can put it there, because it fits our notions of theology.
Isaiah here seems to address all Israel--not just the Northern Kingdom of Israel....
Isa 50.This is what the Lord says:
“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce
with which I sent her away?
Or to which of my creditors
did I sell you?
Because of your sins you were sold;
because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.
This says the opposite of what you're implying: God didn't "divorce" anyone. Jews were exiled because of their sins. And as I have become fond of saying, we need the context of this verse. So let's look to the previous chapter-
Is 49:14 But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.”
Obviously on account of the lengthy Jewish exile. How does God respond? The next verse-
“Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?
Though she may forget, I will not forget you!"
And more, verse 22
This is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“See, I will beckon to the nations, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their hips.
and even more, verse 23
Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord;
So yes, Jews were exiled on account of their sins. But God never "divorced them", not in the bible's text and not in deed. He has not forgotten them and He will not forget them. Even if a mother could forget her nursing child, God will not forget them. The nations will bring the exiles back to their land. God so promised, and I trust His word.
-
The Jewish sages [Moshkovitz, Malbim and Abarbanel] say that the ‘sister’ peoples will be the most important part of the new Israelite nation after they all return and Judah will be subservient to Joseph.
Ooo, now we're quoting Jewish commentaries? Can I have a source, please?
Am I allowed to quote Jewish commentary too, or is it only permissible when it helps you?
-
The Jewish sages [Moshkovitz, Malbim and Abarbanel] say that the ‘sister’ peoples will be the most important part of the new Israelite nation after they all return and Judah will be subservient to Joseph.
Ooo, now we're quoting Jewish commentaries? Can I have a source, please?
Am I allowed to quote Jewish commentary too, or is it only permissible when it helps you?
My source is Yair Davidy, an Australian Jew, who I met in Jerusalem. He has written many books on the subject of the House of Israel; the ten lost tribes. He is not Christian.
What you and most people need to realize, is the Jewish people are not all of Israel. In fact, the House of Judah is just a small part of the original Twelve Tribes.
Prophecy says the House of Israel; the ten Northern tribes; will be as many as the sands of the sea. Soon they will be gathered in the wilderness, Ezekiel 20:34-38
Only the righteous and faithful peoples will be allowed to enter the holy Land. Isaiah 35:1-10
I think the 'wilderness', refers to any place outside of the holy Land.
-
My source is Yair Davidy, an Australian Jew, who I met in Jerusalem.
So you're quoting someone who isn't even here. In court this is called "hearsay" and is not admissible as evidence.
What you and most people need to realize, is the Jewish people are not all of Israel. In fact, the House of Judah is just a small part of the original Twelve Tribes.
And let me take a guess. You're part of those twelve tribes. In fact, you're more Jewish than me! Is this correct?
Prophecy says the House of Israel; the ten Northern tribes; will be as many as the sands of the sea. Soon they will be gathered in the wilderness, Ezekiel 20:34-38
Are you going to be part of these gathered people, then?
Only the righteous and faithful peoples will be allowed to enter the holy Land. Isaiah 35:1-10
People like you! Because now you're WonderJew(TM)
I think the 'wilderness', refers to any place outside of the holy Land.
And also to the emptiness in my head.
-
There is no way that I desire to become a Jew.
But I am an Israelite by faith and also probably by descent.
From the many signs and the indications from the Bible, we are now very close to the time when the Lord will again reset our civilization, as He did in the days of Noah.
We have been warned and eventually only the righteous believers in God will survive it all.
-
But I am an Israelite by faith and also probably by descent.
With modern genetic testing it should be easy enough to determine. Either you're from the Levant, or you're not.
We have been warned and eventually only the righteous believers in God will survive it all.
Righteous believers like you, but not me or indeed anyone else here. Am I correct?
-
But I am an Israelite by faith and also probably by descent.
With modern genetic testing it should be easy enough to determine. Either you're from the Levant, or you're not.
We have been warned and eventually only the righteous believers in God will survive it all.
Righteous believers like you, but not me or indeed anyone else here. Am I correct?
I have been DNA tested. I am as mixed race as everyone, the 50 + generations since Abraham, makes for a genetic melting pot. You may have oral traditions, that may or may not prove your descent from Judah.
You can be fairly sure that somewhere during the last 3000 years, a 'dark horse' has slipped in.
Righteousness is determined by God. He sees into the heart. I pray for everyone I know; to be found righteous.
I invite you to come and sit with me under my vines and fig trees. Zechariah 3:10
-
I have been DNA tested. I am as mixed race as everyone,
But everyone isn't a mixed race. Some people are 100% British, or French, or German. And some people are Jewish.
You may have oral traditions, that may or may not prove your descent from Judah.
I don't have to "prove" anything though.
I invite you to come and sit with me under my vines and fig trees. Zechariah 3:10
Or maybe it will be mine.
-
Hear the Word of the Lord via His prophet; Hosea:
Hosea 4:1-6 You inhabitants of the Land of Israel, hear the Word of the Lord: There is no good faith or loyalty and no [very little] acknowledgement of God in the Land. People break oaths, they kill and commit adultery. Violence and apostasy rule, there is no justice. But it is not for mankind to bring charges, it is My contention and it is with you, the prophets and priests. Day and night you blunder on in your ignorance of My true Word. You bring your nation to ruin with your want of knowledge. As you reject the teaching of God, so I reject you as My priests.
Therefore the Land will be made desolate and all who live in it will suffer, the animals, birds and even the fish will vanish.
Hosea 4:7-19 The more priests there are, the more they sin against Me. Their dignity I shall turn into dishonour. The leaders of My people [Judah and Israel] have given themselves to immorality and strong drink, their wits are dulled and they seek advice from divinators. A people so devoid of understanding will soon come to grief, a powerful wind will hit them and they will realize their practices and beliefs are a delusion.
Hosea 5:1-12 Hear then, you congregation leaders of My people: Sentence is passed on you because you have misled your flocks. I shall punish all those who spread false doctrines and now all Ephraim, Israel [the Western nations] have become promiscuous and their misdeeds have barred their way back to their God. So now a terrible invader is set to devour their lands.
Sound the alarm! On the Day of wrath and punishment Ephraim will be laid waste, certain desolation is decreed for Israel and Judah.
Hosea 6:1-3 Come let us go back to the Lord, He has punished us but He will heal us. After two days He will revive us and on the third day, He will raise us up to live in His presence. Let us press on to know the Lord, His coming is as sure as the sunrise. He will come to us like a refreshing shower, like the spring rains He will water His people with the Holy Spirit. Ref: REB, NIV. Some verses abridged and paraphrased.
‘not for mankind to bring charges’ – Isa. 3:13-15, Zeph. 3:8, Mal. 3:5, Hebrews 10:26-27
‘the Land made desolate’ – Isa.28:22, Eze.20:47, Jer.6:7, Jer.7:34, Zeph.1:18, Micah 1:6
‘a powerful wind will hit them’ – Jer.23:19, Jer.4:26-28, Psalm 3:14-15, Joel 1:15-20
‘the Lord’s Day of vengeance and wrath’, Isaiah 13:9-13, Isaiah 30:26-30, Isaiah 66:15-17, Ezekiel 30:3-5, Zephaniah 1:14-18, 2 Peter3:7, Revelation 6:12-17
‘destruction decreed for Israel and Judah’ Jer.23:9-18, Isa.25:2, Isa 28:22, Amos 6:11
‘teachers and leaders of the flock judged’, James 3:1, Jer.23:1-2, Rev. 2:20-22
‘after two days comes revival, on the third day we will live in His presence’. – Luke 13:32, 2 Peter 3:8 The Lord’s timeline: 4000 years before Christ = 4 days to God in heaven. Then 2000 years of church dispensation = the 2 ‘days’ that Hosea prophesies. His people will be revived and back in the holy Land. Isaiah 62:1-5
Then after the Return of Jesus, He reigns for 1000 earthly years = 1 heavenly day, giving a total of 7000 years of earth time and 7 days of heaven time from Creation until Completion.
-
Hear the Word of the Lord via His prophet; Hosea:
Hosea 4:1-6 You inhabitants of the Land of Israel, hear the Word of the Lord: There is no good faith or loyalty and no [very little] acknowledgement of God in the Land. People break oaths, they kill and commit adultery. Violence and apostasy rule, there is no justice. But it is not for mankind to bring charges, it is My contention and it is with you, the prophets and priests. Day and night you blunder on in your ignorance of My true Word. You bring your nation to ruin with your want of knowledge. As you reject the teaching of God, so I reject you as My priests.
Therefore the Land will be made desolate and all who live in it will suffer, the animals, birds and even the fish will vanish.
This whole chapter already happened with the exile of Israel and Judah. It's a warning to those people, at that time. It has absolutely nothing to do with us today.
Israel [the Western nations]
You added a few words here that aren't in the bible's text. Doesn't God say not to add to His word?
Sound the alarm! On the Day of wrath and punishment Ephraim will be laid waste, certain desolation is decreed for Israel and Judah.
Like I said, Israel and Judah. 2500 years ago. Ancient history.
‘not for mankind to bring charges’ – Isa. 3:13-15, Zeph. 3:8, Mal. 3:5, Hebrews 10:26-27
‘the Land made desolate’ – Isa.28:22, Eze.20:47, Jer.6:7, Jer.7:34, Zeph.1:18, Micah 1:6
‘a powerful wind will hit them’ – Jer.23:19, Jer.4:26-28, Psalm 3:14-15, Joel 1:15-20
‘the Lord’s Day of vengeance and wrath’, Isaiah 13:9-13, Isaiah 30:26-30, Isaiah 66:15-17, Ezekiel 30:3-5, Zephaniah 1:14-18, 2 Peter3:7, Revelation 6:12-17
‘destruction decreed for Israel and Judah’ Jer.23:9-18, Isa.25:2, Isa 28:22, Amos 6:11
‘teachers and leaders of the flock judged’, James 3:1, Jer.23:1-2, Rev. 2:20-22
‘after two days comes revival, on the third day we will live in His presence’. – Luke 13:32, 2 Peter 3:8 The Lord’s timeline: 4000 years before Christ = 4 days to God in heaven. Then 2000 years of church dispensation = the 2 ‘days’ that Hosea prophesies. His people will be revived and back in the holy Land. Isaiah 62:1-5
I'm not looking at all your stray verses. They're all out of context because that's the game you play. And it grows tiresome.
-
Yes, I've heard this argument before. It does appear to apply the "divorce" more definitively to the Northern Kingdom, which had abandoned worship in Jerusalem. But I think the inference of divorce would apply to Judah, as well, even though they were not lost to history.
So the actual text is important. Except when it isn't.
In fact, I consider it a direct reference both to Israel and Judah, because as I said, Jer 31 identifies the recovery as a complete change, as in a new marriage following a divorce. The "divorce" is not mentioned there,
So it's not mentioned there, but we can put it there, because it fits our notions of theology.
Isaiah here seems to address all Israel--not just the Northern Kingdom of Israel....
Isa 50.This is what the Lord says:
“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce
with which I sent her away?
Or to which of my creditors
did I sell you?
Because of your sins you were sold;
because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.
This says the opposite of what you're implying: God didn't "divorce" anyone. Jews were exiled because of their sins. And as I have become fond of saying, we need the context of this verse. So let's look to the previous chapter-
Is 49:14 But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.”
Obviously on account of the lengthy Jewish exile. How does God respond? The next verse-
“Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne?
Though she may forget, I will not forget you!"
And more, verse 22
This is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“See, I will beckon to the nations, I will lift up my banner to the peoples; they will bring your sons in their arms and carry your daughters on their hips.
and even more, verse 23
Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground; they will lick the dust at your feet. Then you will know that I am the Lord;
So yes, Jews were exiled on account of their sins. But God never "divorced them", not in the bible's text and not in deed. He has not forgotten them and He will not forget them. Even if a mother could forget her nursing child, God will not forget them. The nations will bring the exiles back to their land. God so promised, and I trust His word.
No, the text implies that both Judah and Israel were divorced by God. They broke the covenant, and so the complete curse of breaking the covenant resulted just like a divorce would result--in a comprehensive separation, the separation of an entire generation.
The only reason Israel is focused upon initially, before Judah, is because they had abandoned the worship of God in Judah, had formed idols, and ultimately were the first to fall. Nowhere is it implied that Judah would be considered different or spared the same judgment. On the contrary...
But here is a divine love story. Even though a divorce fully takes place, the incomprehensible takes place. Love overcomes all obstacles, and God, not being able to get Israel out of His mind, finds a way to restore her to Himself. A beautiful story...
-
No, the text implies that both Judah and Israel were divorced by God.
The text says that Israel was divorced- not Judah. And it's significant, because as I've pointed out, Israel is lost to history but not Judah.
They broke the covenant, and so the complete curse of breaking the covenant resulted just like a divorce would result--in a comprehensive separation, the separation of an entire generation.
There is no "curse" for "breaking the covenant". If you read the warnings for disobedience in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, they mention horrible curses for disobedience- and they all came true at one point or another. What they never mention is the end of the covenant (Lev 26:44 actually says the exact opposite) because there is no ending the covenant. There is no opt-out clause. The covenant is permanent.
The only reason Israel is focused upon initially, before Judah, is because they had abandoned the worship of God in Judah, had formed idols, and ultimately were the first to fall. Nowhere is it implied that Judah would be considered different or spared the same judgment.
Sure it does. Because Judah survived, and returned to the land, and rebuilt the temple. Hundreds of years later, a Jewish guy named Jesus visited the place.
But here is a divine love story. Even though a divorce fully takes place, the incomprehensible takes place. Love overcomes all obstacles, and God, not being able to get Israel out of His mind, finds a way to restore her to Himself. A beautiful story...
That's true, and doesn't require the NT to happen.
-
The text says that Israel was divorced- not Judah. And it's significant, because as I've pointed out, Israel is lost to history but not Judah.
Jews have a bias in the interpretation. They want Judah to remain "un-divorced" as evidence that Judaism itself remains forever.
So we disagree. You may think you have license, as a Jew, to interpret Jewish Scriptures. But Christians believe God inspired the Scriptures, and provided them to Israel to in turn give them to the world. The Jewish interpretation is illegitimate when it excludes this universal approach to their Scriptures.
There is no "curse" for "breaking the covenant". If you read the warnings for disobedience in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28, they mention horrible curses for disobedience- and they all came true at one point or another. What they never mention is the end of the covenant (Lev 26:44 actually says the exact opposite) because there is no ending the covenant. There is no opt-out clause. The covenant is permanent.
Again, Jews have a bias in coming to this conclusion--they want Judaism to always have an escape clause. But God used the word divorce. And He applied it first to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, with the implication that it held equal force--perhaps more so--to the Southern Kingdom of Judah, because Judah should've known better.
Because Judah survived, and returned to the land, and rebuilt the temple. Hundreds of years later, a Jewish guy named Jesus visited the place.
The rebuilding of the nation around Judah was the miracle of restoration following divorce. It was God's ultimate forgiveness--divorce was a final act of marriage. But God showed His kindness and love by restoring even a divorcee.
That's true, and doesn't require the NT to happen.
Well, we have to disagree there, for obvious reasons. The NT was, for me, God's means of restoring Israel. The Jewish Diaspora is indicative of the fact God is not yet pleased with Israel's current condition.
He doesn't curse nations or peoples just because they follow their own religious convictions. But He can't bless them when they're not obeying His word.
I don't think Jews know God's word any longer, accept the words on a page. The NT is God's exclusive means of speaking to people today, and He's not going to compromise truth.
-
Jews have a bias in the interpretation.
There's no text that says that God "divorced" Judah. If reading the actual text is biased, then yes, I'm biased.
They want Judah to remain "un-divorced" as evidence that Judaism itself remains forever.
The text says that Judaism remains forever. If you're unhappy with that, take it up with God. Not me.
An example from Exodus 31:
Six days work may be done, but on the seventh day is a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord; whoever performs work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Thus shall the children of Israel observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath throughout their generations as an eternal covenant. Between Me and the children of Israel, it is a sign forever that in six days The Lord created the heaven and the earth, and on the seventh day He ceased and rested.
Through out their generations. Eternal covenant. Sign forever.
What do those words mean to you?
So we disagree. You may think you have license, as a Jew, to interpret Jewish Scriptures.
I do.
But Christians believe God inspired the Scriptures, and provided them to Israel to in turn give them to the world. The Jewish interpretation is illegitimate when it excludes this universal approach to their Scriptures.
IN other words, "the Jewish interpretation is illegitimate because I don't agree with it. "
Again, Jews have a bias in coming to this conclusion--they want Judaism to always have an escape clause.
I just said the exact opposite. Judaism has no escape clause. Please read what I say.
But God used the word divorce. And He applied it first to the Northern Kingdom of Israel, with the implication that it held equal force--perhaps more so--to the Southern Kingdom of Judah, because Judah should've known better.
The word "divorce" is never used in regards to Judah. Words, they mean things.
The rebuilding of the nation around Judah was the miracle of restoration following divorce. It was God's ultimate forgiveness--divorce was a final act of marriage. But God showed His kindness and love by restoring even a divorcee.
Then the covenant remained in effect. You're coming around I see.
Well, we have to disagree there, for obvious reasons. The NT was, for me, God's means of restoring Israel.
But you just said that God restored Israel prior to Jesus. How perplexing!
I don't think Jews know God's word any longer
I guess we will find out.
-
Jeremiah 13:1-10 Jeremiah is instructed to buy a loincloth. He is then told to hide it near a river. After a long time, he retrieved it, but it was ruined.
Jeremiah 13:11-27 Thus, I shall ruin the enormous pride of Judah, these people with stubborn hearts, who worship other gods – they will become like that cloth, no good for anything. Hosea 8:14, Jeremiah 8:5-12
......I bound all Israel and all Judah to Me, so that they should become a source of renown and praise to Me, but they did not listen. Isaiah 31:6-7
....I shall make all who live in Jerusalem drunk..... I shall show no compassion nor refrain from destroying them. Obadiah 12-16
Pay heed, be not too proud to listen, for it is the Lord who speaks.
Give glory to God, before the light that you look for turns to darkness.
If in the depths you will not listen, then weep bitterly for the Lords people are carried off into captivity. [Judah conquered by Babylon and again in AD70] Ezekiel 21:14
Say to the King and the Queen mother; take a humble seat, for your crowns have fallen. Ezekiel 21:25-27
The towns in the Negev are besieged, no one can relieve them. Judah has been swept clean away. This is paralleled by Ezekiel 20:46-47, Isaiah 9:18-19, Jeremiah 10:18
Look up and see! Those people who are coming from the North.
The Lord’s people, all true Christians, migrating to the Land. Isaiah 41:8-10
Where is the flock that you were so proud of?
God’s people scattered among the nations.
What will you say when your leaders are missing? When you wonder why this has happened? It is because of your many sins. Isaiah 3:1-3
Can a Nubian change his skin? No more can you, [Judah] do good, so accustomed are you to doing evil. Isaiah 38-9
I will scatter you like chaff, before the desert wind. Jeremiah 33:14
This is your lot – I have decreed this for you, because you have forgotten Me and trusted in false gods. I will bare your shame for all to see. Isaiah 3:16-26
For your adulteries and shameful deeds – woe to you Jerusalem. How much longer will you be unclean? Nahum 1:12-15
This is a clear prophecy about the judgement of Judah in ancient times and again, soon to happen, proved by the unfulfilled prophesies here and throughout the Bible.
Then, the Lord’s faithful Christian people will enter the Land from the North. Isaiah 49:12 They will live there, in peace and security, to prepare for the Return of Jesus.
Reference; Revised English Bible, some verses abridged.
-
This is a clear prophecy about the judgement of Judah in ancient times
Yes.
and again, soon to happen,
Not anywhere in the text.
Then, the Lord’s faithful Christian people will enter the Land from the North. Isaiah 49:12
Again quoting a single verse while ignoring the rest of the chapter I see. Why not start from verse 5?
And now the Lord says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord
and my God has been my strength—
he says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”
This is what the Lord says—
the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel-
to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation,
to the servant of rulers:
“Kings will see you and stand up,
princes will see and bow down,
because of the Lord, who is faithful,
the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you.”
This is what the Lord says:
“In the time of my favor I will answer you,
and in the day of salvation I will help you;
I will keep you and will make you
to be a covenant for the people,
to restore the land
and to reassign its desolate inheritances,
to say to the captives, ‘Come out,’
and to those in darkness, ‘Be free!’
“They will feed beside the roads
and find pasture on every barren hill.
They will neither hunger nor thirst,
nor will the desert heat or the sun beat down on them.
He who has compassion on them will guide them
and lead them beside springs of water.
I will turn all my mountains into roads,
and my highways will be raised up.
See, they will come from afar—
some from the north, some from the west,
some from the region of Aswan.”
Shout for joy, you heavens;
rejoice, you earth;
burst into song, you mountains!
For the Lord comforts his people
and will have compassion on his afflicted ones.
But Zion said, “The Lord has forsaken me,
the Lord has forgotten me.”
“Can a mother forget the baby at her breast
and have no compassion on the child she has borne?
Though she may forget,
I will not forget you!
See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands;
your walls are ever before me.
Your children hasten back,
and those who laid you waste depart from you.
Lift up your eyes and look around;
all your children gather and come to you.
As surely as I live,” declares the Lord,
“you will wear them all as ornaments;
you will put them on, like a bride.
“Though you were ruined and made desolate
and your land laid waste,
now you will be too small for your people,
and those who devoured you will be far away.
The children born during your bereavement
will yet say in your hearing,
‘This place is too small for us;
give us more space to live in.’
Then you will say in your heart,
‘Who bore me these?
I was bereaved and barren;
I was exiled and rejected.
Who brought these up?
I was left all alone,
but these—where have they come from?’”
This is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“See, I will beckon to the nations,
I will lift up my banner to the peoples;
they will bring your sons in their arms
and carry your daughters on their hips.
Kings will be your foster fathers,
and their queens your nursing mothers.
They will bow down before you with their faces to the ground;
they will lick the dust at your feet.
Then you will know that I am the Lord;
those who hope in me will not be disappointed.”
When one reads the whole chapter it looks somewhat different, eh?
-
When a theology says that an ethno-religious group is intrinsically blind (by God? by satan? both, it often seems like) such that they are unable to read their own holy book, understand it, or elucidate anything of value in it... that's an inherent prejudice against that ethno-religious group. Supersessionism is antisemitic.
And as much as I anticipate getting some flak for saying that so bluntly, it's still entirely accurate.
Four of the recent threads are orbiting right around this supersessionist/antisemitic "Jews are blind and can't read their own Bible" theology, if not dropping right into its gravity.
For a religion that began as a Jewish sect of Jews who kept the Jewish law and Jewish holidays and followed (who they believed to be) the Jewish messiah because they believed the Jewish prophecies which repeatedly said that the Jewish God would exalt the Jewish nation... there is a lot of really blatant antisemitism in the form of Christianity being pushed in these recent threads.
-
Plus
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
You're going to need to provide a chapter and verse from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy. I can't think of a single point that says what you're claiming it says.
Did I ever get an answer to this?
I also keep seeing a lot of really bold claims like this in these threads, with no evidence to back it up even when asked.
(https://i.imgur.com/zMd0evV.jpeg)
-
Anti-Semitic? No I am anti the godless and Jesus rejecting people, of every race or nation.
Jeremiah 6:8-9 Be instructed, Jerusalem [Judah], or your God will depart from you and will devastate the Land. Psalms 89:30-32, Matthew 21:43
The Lord says: Glean like a vine the remnant of Israel, one last time, like the vine dresser – pass your hand over the branches. Isaiah 5:5-7
Jeremiah 6:10-15 To whom shall I speak and give warning? Who will hear me? Their ears are blocked, they are incapable of listening. They treat the Lord’s Word as a reproach, it has no appeal for them. Ezekiel 14:2, Ezekiel 22:26-28
But I am full of the anger of the Lord, I cannot hold it back. Isaiah 63:1-6 I must pour it out onto all the people of the Land. Their houses will be given to others.
2 Esdras 1:35-37
For all the leaders and people only consider themselves, their prophets and Rabbis are all frauds, every one of them. They fail to address the real problems of their people. They say: “All is well”. All well? Nothing is right and just. They ought to be ashamed because of their sinful practices, yet they have no sense of shame, therefore they will fall with a great crash and be brought low on the Day of My reckoning. Ezekiel 33:25-26
Jeremiah 6:16-20-30 The Lord says: you should enquire about the Way that leads to righteousness. But they said: “We refuse”. Then I appointed watchmen – listen for the call they told them. But they said: “We refuse”. Therefore hear you nations and take note of the plight of these people. I am about to bring ruin upon them, for all their sinful ways and ignoring My instructions. Your sacrifices are not acceptable and your offerings do not please Me. Zephaniah1:4-6 Matthew 24:41-42
Therefore the Lord says: I will set obstacles before this people, which will bring them to the ground, father, sons, friends and neighbours will all perish together. Jeremiah 12:14-17
A great host appears, like men arrayed for battle, against you: Zion.
Joel 2:1-11, Revelation 6:12-17, Isaiah 2:12-21
These verses are the clearest description of how the Lord will act on His great Day of vengeance. Isaiah 63:1-6 A coronal mass ejection flash will ‘come in an instant’, but ‘news of its coming will reach us’, by the STEREO satellite system. ‘Do not go outside’, is obvious – get into underground shelters and stay there until it passes, at least 24hrs. Psalms 18:7-15, Isaiah 30:26
It is appointed to assay My people, testing their conduct, but they are all rebels, mischief makers and corrupt to a man. The bellows blow, the fire is ready. All types of metal in vain the refiner refines, but the impurities cannot be removed.
Call them reject silver, for the Lord has rejected them. Ref: REB.
Only a remnant of the people of the Jewish State of Israel will survive. Isaiah 6:11-13, Romans 9:27
All of this prophecy in Jeremiah is telling us about the coming fire judgement – the Lord’s Day of vengeance and wrath. This will affect all the world, but especially the Middle East and this prophesy applies specifically to Judah, the current inhabitants of the Land. Amos 2:4-5, Ezekiel 20:46-48, Ezekiel 21:1-17, Isaiah 6:11-14
-
Anti-Semitic? No I am anti the godless and Jesus rejecting people, of every race or nation.
Oh please. Spare us. You have this fantasy of most of the world dying in a hellish inferno, but especially the Jews. And it's sadistic and disgusting and decidedly not Christian.
Only a remnant of the people of the Jewish State of Israel will survive. Isaiah 6:11-13
Then I said, “For how long, Lord?”
And he answered:
“Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
until the Lord has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
This already happened, in 586BC. Todays Jews are the remnant.
-
The text says that Israel was divorced- not Judah. And it's significant, because as I've pointed out, Israel is lost to history but not Judah.
You keep saying this, but I've given you the relevant Scripture passages. When God said He is divorcing the Northern Kingdom, and that the Southern Kingdom is even worse, you conclude that somehow the Southern Kingdom is not going to be divorced? The *only reason* divorce is mentioned for the Northern Kingdom first is because they were the first to terminate their covenant with God!
This was given not just to the Northern Kingdom but also to the Southern Kingdom:
Isa 50.1 Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.
Divorce was used, by the Prophets, as an indication of an irrevocably broken covenant under the Law. Once sin had reached a certain stage, exile became unavoidable. The putting away of Israel from their land was the equivalent of putting a woman away in divorce. Both northern and southern kingdoms were as such "put away." Both were "divorced."
Jews will not accept this because they have a vested interest in preserving a religion that had, in reality, been vacated and delegitimized by God. In breaking the covenant to the extent it was called a "divorce" indicates that the agreement was off, and Judaism could no longer be called upon to prove the promise of restoration, to prove the necessity of the Abrahamic hope.
However, Christianity validates the Abrahamic covenant through a different pathway, beyond Judaism, which has been laid upon the foundation of Judaism. Instead of the Law, which has disqualified Israel, Christian grace is used as the basis for Israel's hope, as well as the hope for the rest of the nations, who are equally undeserving.
-
Anti-Semitic? No I am anti the godless and Jesus rejecting people, of every race or nation.
I recall someone posting one of the most tired antisemitic conspiracy theories about "the Rothchilds" in another thread...
-
Jews will not accept this because they have a vested interest in preserving ((their)) religion
You say this like it's some kind of profound observation that members of Judaism... want to preserve Judaism, and hence disagree with an objectively errant take on their religious beliefs.
that had, in reality, been vacated and delegitimized by God.
As you've been told several times, the Torah contains provisions for when the covenant is broken, how covenant-breakers may be disciplined, and how they may be restored.
When the terms of a contract explicitly say "if you break this contract, I will punish you and then restore you", and you pretend that last part doesn't exist, it makes it really hard to believe you're being intellectually honest with this topic.
Probably why you made this claim, but are ignoring my request for you to cite your sources.
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
You're going to need to provide a chapter and verse from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy. I can't think of a single point that says what you're claiming it says.
Did I ever get an answer to this?
I also keep seeing a lot of really bold claims like this in these threads, with no evidence to back it up even when asked.
-
You keep saying this, but I've given you the relevant Scripture passages. When God said He is divorcing the Northern Kingdom, and that the Southern Kingdom is even worse, you conclude that somehow the Southern Kingdom is not going to be divorced?
Yes, because (believe it or not!) God doesn't say that He "divorced" Judah. God in the book of Isaiah says the exact opposite in fact, that the Jews weren't exiled because of divorce, but only because they sinned! And as per Lev 36 and Deut 28, exile in a punishment for sin under the Sinai covenant. It means the covenant is still in effect, in other words.
The *only reason* divorce is mentioned for the Northern Kingdom first is because they were the first to terminate their covenant with God!
Again, if you read the bible very carefully, there are no conditions under which the covenant is terminated. None. Zero. There's no opting out. We're bound to God and obligated to follow the rules He gave us whether we like it or not.
This was given not just to the Northern Kingdom but also to the Southern Kingdom:
Isa 50.1 Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.
OMG at least quote the whole verse, because this is disingenuous in the extreme-
This is what the LORD says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away."
"I didn't send you away because of divorce, I sent you away because you sinned. "
And the previous chapter creates context.
And Zion said, "The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me." Shall a woman forget her sucking child, from having mercy on the child of her womb? These too shall forget, but I will not forget you.
The exile was for sin, but there will be an ingathering when we again deserve it, and it will be gorious.
Divorce was used, by the Prophets, as an indication of an irrevocably broken covenant under the Law.
No, it's not, and that's the whole point. Exile is a punishment under the covenant, not a breaking of the covenant. If the covenant was broken God would have destroyed us, as so many other nations have vanished form the earth. But God specifically said otherwise, to wit, Lev 26:44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God.
Jews will not accept this because they have a vested interest in preserving a religion that had, in reality, been vacated and delegitimized by God.
Jews will not accept this because we love God, and because there's nothing in the text of the bible to lead us to believe that any covenant has been "broken". And If we can't find it in the bible, which is God's word, why should a trust a human being's word on the matter?
However, Christianity
Christianity is a different religion from Judaism. And I can spring your own words right back on you. You feel the need to delegitimize Judaism to "prove" to yourself that your faith is correct.
-
I'm going to quote all of Leviticus 26 for clarity on the matter.
“‘Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the Lord your God.
“‘Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the Lord.
This section is the rewards for obedience
“‘If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees their fruit. Your threshing will continue until grape harvest and the grape harvest will continue until planting, and you will eat all the food you want and live in safety in your land.
“‘I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove wild beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country. You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. Five of you will chase a hundred, and a hundred of you will chase ten thousand, and your enemies will fall by the sword before you.
“‘I will look on you with favor and make you fruitful and increase your numbers, and I will keep my covenant with you. You will still be eating last year’s harvest when you will have to move it out to make room for the new. I will put my dwelling place among you, and I will not abhor you. I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt so that you would no longer be slaves to the Egyptians; I broke the bars of your yoke and enabled you to walk with heads held high.
So far so good. Next comes the Punishment for Disobedience
“‘But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant, then I will do this to you: I will bring on you sudden terror, wasting diseases and fever that will destroy your sight and sap your strength. You will plant seed in vain, because your enemies will eat it. I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you.
“‘If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze. Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, nor will the trees of your land yield their fruit.
“‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.
“‘If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. And I will bring the sword on you to avenge the breaking of the covenant. When you withdraw into your cities, I will send a plague among you, and you will be given into enemy hands. When I cut off your supply of bread, ten women will be able to bake your bread in one oven, and they will dole out the bread by weight. You will eat, but you will not be satisfied.
“‘If in spite of this you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over. You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars and pile your dead bodies on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I will abhor you. I will turn your cities into ruins and lay waste your sanctuaries, and I will take no delight in the pleasing aroma of your offerings. I myself will lay waste the land, so that your enemies who live there will be appalled. I will scatter you among the nations and will draw out my sword and pursue you. Your land will be laid waste, and your cities will lie in ruins. Then the land will enjoy its sabbath years all the time that it lies desolate and you are in the country of your enemies; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the time that it lies desolate, the land will have the rest it did not have during the sabbaths you lived in it.
“‘As for those of you who are left, I will make their hearts so fearful in the lands of their enemies that the sound of a windblown leaf will put them to flight. They will run as though fleeing from the sword, and they will fall, even though no one is pursuing them. They will stumble over one another as though fleeing from the sword, even though no one is pursuing them. So you will not be able to stand before your enemies. You will perish among the nations; the land of your enemies will devour you. Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their ancestors’ sins they will waste away.
All terrifying, especially since all these terrible things happened to us. But nothing about ending the covenant. All these punishments take place within the conditions of the covenant.
Next-
“‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their ancestors—their unfaithfulness and their hostility toward me, which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they pay for their sin, I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.
If while in exile and being punished, we confess our sins, God will remember the covenant. See, because it's still in effect.
For the land will be deserted by them and will enjoy its sabbaths while it lies desolate without them. They will pay for their sins because they rejected my laws and abhorred my decrees. Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant with their ancestors whom I brought out of Egypt in the sight of the nations to be their God. I am the Lord.’” These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the Lord established at Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses.
Even while in exile, God will not destroy us or annul His covenant with us. He will remember the covenant that He made with our ancestors. This is the plain text of the bible.
-
You don't need to quote, Fenris, the blessings and the curses of the Law. I know them very well. However, the promise of perseverance beyond the apparent failure of the Law is not the product of obedience to the Law and the blessing of obedience.
On the contrary, Israel disobeys and is cursed. They are restored, and persevere as God's people not because of the Law, but only because of God's promise to Abraham.
Do you see the difference? If national salvation was by the Law, it would've been by their obedience. But they are exiled out of disobedience, out of the curse of the Law. Therefore, it s not the Law that saves them, but rather, mercy *beyond the Law itself!*
It is not by the blessings of obedience to the Law, but rather by mercy, because they failed under the Law. It was, as Paul said, because of God's mercy, and by God's promise to the patriarchs, and not by the Law, which Israel clearly failed.
-
You don't need to quote, Fenris, the blessings and the curses of the Law. I know them very well.
Do you, though?
However, the promise of perseverance beyond the apparent failure of the Law
There is no failure of the law. What does that even mean?
On the contrary, Israel disobeys and is cursed. They are restored, and persevere as God's people not because of the Law, but only because of God's promise to Abraham.
Not what the bible says.
Deuteronomy 30:
When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors.
Do you see the difference? If national salvation was by the Law, it would've been by their obedience. But they are exiled out of disobedience, out of the curse of the Law. Therefore, it s not the Law that saves them, but rather, mercy *beyond the Law itself!*
See the above. That we haven't been redeemed yet is because we haven't fully returned to the law *yet*. Or did God just put Deuteronomy 30 in the bible for nothing?
It is not by the blessings of obedience to the Law, but rather by mercy, because they failed under the Law. It was, as Paul said, because of God's mercy, and by God's promise to the patriarchs, and not by the Law, which Israel clearly failed.
Israel was blessed during King David and especially King Solomon's time. Come to think of it, Israel seems pretty blessed now, also. So I mean, it is possible. Deuteronomy 30, again-
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
-
Leviticus 26:21-28 describes two sets of punishments, against the House of Israel, Leviticus 26:21-22, multiplied by seven and against the House of Judah; Leviticus 26:23-45. Multiplied by seven times seven.
Note; that Leviticus 26:41-42 clearly says: IF their stubborn spirit is broken and they accept their punishment in full.
THEN; I shall remember My Covenant with Abraham and shall remember the holy Land.
I believe these prophesies relate to Ezekiel 4:4-6, where we are told the times for the punishment by exile for both Houses.
For Israel, it is 390 X 7 = 2730 years. For Judah it is 40 X 7 X 7= 1960 years.
Israel, the ten Northern tribes were conquered by Shalmaneser in 722-721 BC, but finally exiled by Sargon 2, circa 715 BC. This means their exile is over just about now.
Judah the Jewish people were exiled for the second time in 70 AD. Their final return, when they repent and accept Jesus as Messiah, will be 1960 years later, in 2030. When Jesus Returns. Zechariah 12:9-14
-
Do you, though?
I would insist not, given both you and I have asked them to provide chapter and verse demonstrating
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
and they've ignored/refused each time we've asked.
-
Leviticus 26:21-28 describes two sets of punishments, against the House of Israel, Leviticus 26:21-22, multiplied by seven and against the House of Judah; Leviticus 26:23-45.
Israel is named precisely once in Leviticus 26, in verse 46, as "the people of Israel", where context plainly shows it refers to every person who had followed Moses to Mount Sinai after the escape from Egypt. Judah is not named a single time in the chapter. There's no justification for this arbitrary chopping of 26:21-22 as "against the House of Israel" or 26:23-45 as "against the House of Judah".
Why do the two people with the theologies most hostile to Jews keep making up details nowhere to be found in the Bible, where those made-up details promote an antisemitic supersessionist theology? Seriously? How is this dishonesty at all excusable?
-
Leviticus 26:21-28 describes two sets of punishments, against the House of Israel, Leviticus 26:21-22, multiplied by seven and against the House of Judah; Leviticus 26:23-45. Multiplied by seven times seven.
Note; that Leviticus 26:41-42 clearly says: IF their stubborn spirit is broken and they accept their punishment in full.
THEN; I shall remember My Covenant with Abraham and shall remember the holy Land.
And Lev 26:44 says Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them.
You have not referenced this verse no matter how many times I point it out.
I believe these prophesies relate to Ezekiel 4:4-6, where we are told the times for the punishment by exile for both Houses.
For Israel, it is 390 X 7 = 2730 years. For Judah it is 40 X 7 X 7= 1960 years.
Israel, the ten Northern tribes were conquered by Shalmaneser in 722-721 BC, but finally exiled by Sargon 2, circa 715 BC. This means their exile is over just about now.
I majored in mathematics in college, and I have to tell you, I have no idea where these numbers are coming from or what they mean.
Their final return, when they repent and accept Jesus as Messiah
There is no obligation in the bible to "accept" anyone as the messiah.
-
I think the Law is permanent. The covenant between God and Israel at Mount Sinai is permanent. The Christian teaching is that when we believe in Jesus, we die to the law (we die, not the law dies). That is the way out, when we die with Jesus.
Galatians 2:19 For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
Another important aspect of the New Covenant besides having the law written in the heart, is that iniquity is forgiven (Jeremiah 31:33-34). Christians believe this complete forgiveness of sins is only possible through the blood of Jesus Christ, who takes away our sin forever. In the Torah, the Day of Atonement only took away sins at that moment and needed to be repeated year after year. Christians believe the Day of Atonement points to Jesus' ultimate sacrifice.
-
Again, if you read the bible very carefully, there are no conditions under which the covenant is terminated. None. Zero. There's no opting out. We're bound to God and obligated to follow the rules He gave us whether we like it or not.
There are *many* passages I could cite you, indicating such. Usually they're just rationalized away. For example, God tells Moses He's prepared to completely dispose of Israel, and create a whole new nation out of Moses. But He really wishes to show mercy to Israel before doing that.
The lesson is clear. God extends His mercy. But His mercy has limits.
This was given not just to the Northern Kingdom but also to the Southern Kingdom:
Isa 50.1 Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away.
OMG at least quote the whole verse, because this is disingenuous in the extreme-
This is what the LORD says: “Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away."
"I didn't send you away because of divorce, I sent you away because you sinned. "
And the previous chapter creates context.
And Zion said, "The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me." Shall a woman forget her sucking child, from having mercy on the child of her womb? These too shall forget, but I will not forget you.
The exile was for sin, but there will be an ingathering when we again deserve it, and it will be gorious.
My friend, I read this very differently from how you do. It's not that I'm chopping up passages to read it a particular way that favors my position. I read this as God saying, in effect, "If I wanted to just dispose of you, out of dislike, or with no sense of mercy, I would've written out a bill for divorce, just as a man might do who is displeased with something about his wife. But now I'm divorcing you, not because I disliked you, but because you have abandoned me for other lovers. So I am indeed divorcing you!"
Divorce was used, by the Prophets, as an indication of an irrevocably broken covenant under the Law.
No, it's not, and that's the whole point. Exile is a punishment under the covenant, not a breaking of the covenant. If the covenant was broken God would have destroyed us, as so many other nations have vanished form the earth. But God specifically said otherwise, to wit, Lev 26:44 Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God.
Again, we read this differently. The punishments for disobedience are still under the Law, but only up until there is an exile. "Divorce" is a metaphor for exile. Once disobedience has reached this point, the agreement is off, just as any party who fails a contract no longer has a contract.
There is some confusion here, however, as to what "covenant" we're talking about. I don't believe the Abrahamic Covenant will ever fail. But the application of that covenant to all Israel does indeed fail, because not everybody in Israel remains true to God. Their part in Abraham's Covenant can fail, even if God will find those who will meet His conditions for fulfilling the covenant.
The Law pointed out that all were guilty, to some degree, under the Covenant of Abraham. All Israel were God's People, but all were going to fail to some degree.
And so, what was the point at which people under this Covenant could fail completely? Or are you saying that *nobody* can ever completely leave God and fail completely? Of course, some did fail, and were cut off from the Covenant.
When the whole nation went astray, then the whole nation was cut off from the Covenant. This did not mean the Covenant could fail. It's just that God had to find new people to fulfill the promise. And so, Israel was restored.
But one day Israel's restoration no longer required restoration to the Law. This did not mean they would not be restored to the Abrahamic Covenant, but only that it at some point would no longer require the Law. Once they had had their sins atoned for for all time, no sacrifice and no purification ritual would be required any longer, which in turn would no longer require temple to separate God from the people, and there would no longer be need for a priesthood to stand between God and the people.
-
There are *many* passages I could cite you, indicating such.
Okay. Start here:
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
You said this near the start of the thread. Both Fenris and I asked -- about five or six times now -- for you to cite the part(s) of the Torah which say this. And you conspicuously won't.
-
There are *many* passages I could cite you, indicating such.
Okay. Start here:
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
You said this near the start of the thread. Both Fenris and I asked -- about five or six times now -- for you to cite the part(s) of the Torah which say this. And you conspicuously won't.
Not true. My answers are the answer to this. I just provided the account in which God said He was willing to destroy the nation completely, replacing it with a new nation beginning with Moses. This alone disproves your dishonest claim that I'm conspicuously avoiding your question.
Two, I argued that the blessings and curses of the Law are different from divorce, that Israel is allowed a certain amount of failure before divorce. But once national apostasy takes place, the resulting exile is defined as a "divorce." And I gave you several passages that refer to the divorce, as equally applicable to northern and southern kingdoms.
Three, I could add more by showing that there were bursting points at which the covenant was broken, such as where the Prophets said that God would no longer relent from His promise of punishment by exile.
Four, I could add more by showing that the wicked are promised eternal judgment, which is in fact a complete failure under the Law.
Five, I've argued that national restoration after exile is not a continuation of the Law, but rather, a resuscitation of the Law, meaning that the Law had failed, but had been mercifully allowed to resume.
The continuation of Moral Law is something God built into man's creation, and it would continue regardless of Israel's covenant under Law failing. But God resumed the covenant of Law for Israel after failure because He was showing that mercy triumphs over failure of the Law.
Six, I've showed in Jer 31.31-32 where the Law of Moses had to be replaced with a new Law. This implied that the Law of Moses had failed.
Seven, I could show that Israel repeatedly, throughout her history, turned away from God, as a nation, and embraced foreign gods, which amounted to spiritual adultery. Again, this constitutes conditions for divorce, and a resulting national judgment indicates that God essentially acts not just as if a curse of the Law is in place, but more, the ultimate curse of exile and complete failure.
When Israel continued to follow the Law of Moses in exile, they were graciously given hope in a restored covenant of the Law. But in the meantime, they were in only partial compliance with the Law, not having temple, priesthood, or sacrifices. For all intents and purposes, they could *not* have been in compliance with the Law, but only in partial compliance with a Law that was demonstrably broken.
I suggest this, friend, that the curses of the Law were not the kinds of sins that were covered by sin offerings and guilt offerings. Rather, they amounted to an indictment against Israel for spiritual adultery, with the promised consequence of termination of the covenant agreement, or divorce. It was in fact a complete failure of the covenant under the Law, though not God's failure to fulfill His promise to save Israel.
My argument is that with the fact of spiritual adultery taking place nationally in Israel there would be a consequent exile. And I'm saying that this exile is, in fact, divorce, or a termination of God's covenant with Israel under the Law. Fortunately, mercy triumphs over the failure of the Law.
-
Eleven paragraphs, and you still didn't cite where the Torah says
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
Do you genuinely not understand how disingenuous that is?
-
Eleven paragraphs, and you still didn't cite where the Torah says
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
Do you genuinely not understand how disingenuous that is?
No, I answered the question. Apparently you don't like the answer. I did, in fact, answer the question directly. You seem to want me to cite an article from an outdated contract to show that the contract is no longer valid.
Reality check: the contract is not going to stipulate that it is broken while it is still being enforced. But it is, in fact, prophesied within this contract that if the infractions are carried farther than the contract can tolerate, an end of the contract itself will result.
Once again, the contract itself stipulated that some failures would be tolerated. This was part of the continuing contract. But at the point where recovery was long-term, provisions for failure would no longer suffice. Beyond mere defeats in battle with enemies, the entire nation would be exiled, which was the equivalent of a failed contract.
The end of the contract consists of an end of one of the parties to the contract, which was in history the end of Israel as "God's People" under the contract of the Law. The fact God found another way to keep them as "His People," apart from their meeting the conditions of the Law, indicated that even though the contract of Law was broken, they could continue to be God's People by mercy.
Again, since you have trouble understanding the argument, the prophecy contained within the Law states that when the failures under the Contract exceed the maximum limit, and exile results, it is an indication that the Contract was finished. Its restoration does not mean it wasn't dead, at least for a time. Clearly, exile equals Dead Contract.
The contract is broken when one of the parties fails to meet their part of the agreement. Israel failed their part of the agreement. They failed to be in conformity with the law of marriage to God. This was not a matter of temporary lapses, which was tolerated under contract of the Law. No, a complete national abandonment of the Law of their God constituted a complete failure under the Law, indeed a failure of the Contract of the Law.
God tolerated a lot of sin before giving Israel over to their adultery. It is when the nation, as a whole, committed to spiritual adultery, which was idolatry, that the marriage failed, and the contract ceased. This wasn't a temporary lapse, or a partial lapse by only some of the people. This was a complete national succumbing to idolatry, abandoning their contract with God under the Law. This was the complete failure of that Contract, and in fact a Divorce!
Do I need to repeat this again? I know it doesn't fit your way of thinking.
-
There are *many* passages I could cite you, indicating such.
Just one would suffice. Just one.
Usually they're just rationalized away. For example, God tells Moses He's prepared to completely dispose of Israel, and create a whole new nation out of Moses.
Yet He doesn't.
The lesson is clear. God extends His mercy. But His mercy has limits.
Yes? I'd like a biblical verse for that too, if you please.
My friend, I read this very differently from how you do. It's not that I'm chopping up passages to read it a particular way that favors my position. I read this as God saying, in effect, "If I wanted to just dispose of you, out of dislike, or with no sense of mercy, I would've written out a bill for divorce, just as a man might do who is displeased with something about his wife. But now I'm divorcing you, not because I disliked you, but because you have abandoned me for other lovers. So I am indeed divorcing you!"
But the verse says the exact opposite. What gives you any right to take a verse in the bible, a direct quote from God in fact, and say that it means the opposite of what God said? Do you think that God will forgive you for doing that?
Again, we read this differently. The punishments for disobedience are still under the Law, but only up until there is an exile.
No. Again, that's the opposite of what the bible says. Read Leviticus 26:44. I've posted it numerous times and you have yet to acknowledge it. "Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God." Stop ignoring it. It's the exact word of God.
And so, what was the point at which people under this Covenant could fail completely? Or are you saying that *nobody* can ever completely leave God and fail completely?
Yes, that's right. There's no opt out clause. A Jewish person who doesn't believe in God and sins continuously is still obligated to follow the law. That they choose not to doesn't exempt them. Are you understanding me?
-
No, I answered the question.
He asked for a verse, any verse, which you did not provide. You type whole paragraphs of your thoughts without citing a single biblical verse to support them.
-
I think the Law is permanent. The covenant between God and Israel at Mount Sinai is permanent. The Christian teaching is that when we believe in Jesus, we die to the law (we die, not the law dies). That is the way out, when we die with Jesus.
Now see, this is a different and interesting opinion.
-
The lesson is clear. God extends His mercy. But His mercy has limits.
Yes? I'd like a biblical verse for that too, if you please.
I remember this one!
Lamentations 3:22 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end
... Wait.
-
No, I answered the question.
You absolutely did not.
You said
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
and in response, both Fenris and I have asked several times for you to cite even a single verse from the Law which says what you claimed it says. After several back-and-forths, you finally acknowledged the request, but still refused to quote any part of the Torah which says this thing.
You typed nineteen paragraphs defending your claim, even insisting you did provide a chapter-and-verse reference, yet nowhere in any of your comments in this thread can we find a citation from the Torah that says what you originally claimed.
At what point can we just call this obvious lie a "lie"?
-
I remember this one!
Lamentations 3:22 The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases, his mercies never come to an end
... Wait.
Nah he'll say it means exactly the opposite.
-
Thanks for your interest. While the Old Covenant cannot be ended without the death of the man, the author of the New Testament book of Hebrews tries to show from the Old Testament that a new covenant will have a new law too. 1) There is a new priesthood and therefore a new law 2) the tabernacle was a copy of the heavenly tabernacle 3) blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin 4) in one example, God did not desire sacrifices 5) with remission of sins in the new covenant, sacrifices for sin are no longer needed. Summary: the Old Testament hints at changes to the sacrificial system in the future, which requires a new covenant and a new law. Details below.
1) There is a new priesthood and therefore a new law
Hebrews 7:11 WEB "Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is of necessity a change made also in the law."
The author bases his argument on Psalm 110:4, where a king-priest like Melchizedek is appointed who can live forever. According to the Old Testament, the priest must be a descendant of Aaron and the David's throne will last forever, which requires something new to bridge the gap -- a Davidic king who is a lawful priest -- based on a new law.
Psalm 110:4 "Yahweh has sworn, and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek.”
A passage not quoted in Hebrews seems to mention this king-priest too:
Zechariah 6:13 "even he shall build Yahweh’s temple; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; and he shall be a priest on his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both."
2) The tabernacle was a copy of the heavenly tabernacle
Hebrews 8:4 "For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law, 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned by God when he was about to make the tabernacle, for he said, “See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain.” 6 But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which on better promises has been given as law."
quoting
Exodus 25:40 "See that you make them after their pattern, which has been shown to you on the mountain."
3) Blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin
This appears to be an argument from ideas about justice. If a man sins, punishing a substitute goat is not sufficient. Punishing a substitute man is required for the demands of justice. It also argues that they are offered year by year (Day of Atonement), indicating that it did not take away sin for all time.
Hebrews 10:1 "For the law, having a shadow of the good to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Or else wouldn’t they have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a yearly reminder of sins. 4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. "
4) in one example, God did not desire sacrifices
Hebrews 10:5 "Therefore when he comes into the world, he says,
“You didn’t desire sacrifice and offering,
but you prepared a body for me.
6 You had no pleasure in whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it is written of me)
to do your will, O God.’” "
Quoting
Psalm 40:6 "Sacrifice and offering you didn’t desire.
You have opened my ears.
You have not required burnt offering and sin offering.
7 Then I said, “Behold, I have come.
It is written about me in the book in the scroll.
8 I delight to do your will, my God.
Yes, your law is within my heart.”
5) With remission of sins in the new covenant, sacrifices for sin are no longer needed.
Hebrews 10:17 "“I will remember their sins and their iniquities no more.”
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin."
quoting
Jeremiah 31:34 They will no longer each teach his neighbor,
and every man teach his brother, saying, ‘Know Yahweh;’
for they will all know me,
from their least to their greatest,” says Yahweh:
“for I will forgive their iniquity,
and I will remember their sin no more.”
Summary: the Old Testament hints at changes to the sacrificial system in the future, which requires a new covenant and a new law.
It's not that the Old Covenant was bad. It's that the New Covenant is better, offering better promises to Israel. That's some of the points from the book of Hebrews as I understand it.
Today's Judaism has similarly departed from the sacrificial system because the temple does not exist.
I think the Law is permanent. The covenant between God and Israel at Mount Sinai is permanent. The Christian teaching is that when we believe in Jesus, we die to the law (we die, not the law dies). That is the way out, when we die with Jesus.
Now see, this is a different and interesting opinion.
-
No, I answered the question.
You absolutely did not.
I'm going to resist being rude with you, even though your attempts to intimidate are indeed provocative. I've answered your question to *my satisfaction.* If you don't like it, you can be self-satisfied, if you wish.
You obviously don't understand the response, which I do feel more than adequately answers your question. My answer is that contained in the blessings and curses of the Law there is *built in* a failure clause, namely exile. Once the nation gets to exile, the sacrifices for guilt and sin no longer suffice to keep Israel out of exile.
In fact, the entire reading indicates that Israel will, inevitably, fail, and go into exile. The Law will be utterly unable to stop this process because the nation will fail.
At what point can we just call this obvious lie a "lie"?
You shouldn't lie about anybody. I've said repeatedly that exile equals divorce equals failure of the covenant of the Law--not the covenant of Abraham, however, which can be detached from the Law. And restoration after exile does not mean the Law didn't fail--it only means that God restored a Law that had failed.
The provisions of the Law itself are not what restores the Law after failure. If you'll read Eze 36, you will see that it is *mercy* that restores the Law after failure.
Eze 36.22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.
So there is mercy under the Law and mercy apart from the Law. All of the offerings and means of purification under the Law atoned for sin done while the Law was in operation, properly. People sinned, and God covered their sin.
But when sin got to the point of national rebellion, exile resulted, indicating the sacrifices and offerings of the Law no longer sufficed to protect Israel. They went into exile, indicating the Law had failed as a device of protection.
Deut 28-30 indicates how the Law operates and at what point it fails. The curses of the Law are indicative of its evolution towards complete failiure. Restoration of the Law was by God's mercy *outside of the Law*--the people did not deserve restoration, but God was giving them another chance.
The Christian argument is that having failed before, and having been restored to the Law, does not mean that the Law ever has to be restored at all. Mercy can operate to install an entirely different system. And that's what Jer 31 indicates.
Jer 31.32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
-
No, I answered the question.
You absolutely did not.
You said
The Law contained a conditional provision which, if broken, would destroy the deal for all time.
I will try to answer this as directly as I can, which I thought I had been doing. Obviously, you weren't putting 2+2 together, as it was in my own thinking. You thought I was hiding something beyond the chatter. So once again, here the "conditional provision" that I said was in the Law:
Deut 29.24 All the nations will ask: “Why has the Lord done this to this land? Why this fierce, burning anger?”
25 And the answer will be: “It is because this people abandoned the covenant of the Lord, the God of their ancestors, the covenant he made with them when he brought them out of Egypt.
The answer is: when sin within the nation becomes *national failure,* or national idolatry, then the curses of the Law kick in, which ultimately lead to exile.
Exile is the indicator that the Law had failed. The Law was in place to keep Israel in their land and in covenant with God. But exile was an indication that the covenant had not worked, and that Israel had failed, as a nation, under the Law.
While the Law was in effect in the land of Israel, various provisions under the Law kept Israel in relationship with God and offered a means of mercy even while the Law continued to be kept. But once Israel fell into complete spiritual adultery, a divorce resulted, and that was indicated by exile.
How that cannot be clear to you I can't fathom. If you had any failure to understand my argument before, surely you understand it now?
-
In fact, the entire reading indicates that Israel will, inevitably, fail, and go into exile.
And when they return to God and the bible, they will come back out of exile.
Deuteronomy 30
When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today.
The Law will be utterly unable to stop this process because the nation will fail.
It's not God's law that fails. It's the people. But again, Deuteronomy 30 plainly states that we are capable of upholding the law.
Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.
If your bible doesn't have this chapter, you should go out and purchase one that does.
I've said repeatedly that exile equals divorce equals failure of the covenant of the Law
Yes, you have said it. But God didn't. So why should someone listen to you and ignore God?
Eze 36.22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.
What are these things that God is going to do? Two verses later- I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.
But when sin got to the point of national rebellion, exile resulted, indicating the sacrifices and offerings of the Law no longer sufficed to protect Israel. They went into exile, indicating the Law had failed as a device of protection.
The law isn't "protection" for anything. It's a condition of being in a covenant with God.
Deut 28-30 indicates how the Law operates and at what point it fails.
The law doesn't fail. Man does. Deut 30 also shows that this failure can be reversed. It's the plain text, my friend.
The Christian argument is that having failed before, and having been restored to the Law, does not mean that the Law ever has to be restored at all. Mercy can operate to install an entirely different system. And that's what Jer 31 indicates.
Jer 31.32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to them,”
declares the Lord.
Actually, Jeremiah 31 doesn't do away with the law. Exactly the opposite. Verse 33.
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts."
-
The answer is: when sin within the nation becomes *national failure,* or national idolatry, then the curses of the Law kick in, which ultimately lead to exile.
Yes, they do. But what does God say at the end of the curses? Let's have a look at Lev 26:44. Again. Because you continually ignore its existence.
Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them.
Exile is the indicator that the Law had failed. The Law was in place to keep Israel in their land and in covenant with God.
No. The law was a condition of the covenant.
How that cannot be clear to you I can't fathom. If you had any failure to understand my argument before, surely you understand it now?
Have you read Lev 26:44? I can post it again if you require.
-
Thanks for your interest. While the Old Covenant cannot be ended without the death of the man, the author of the New Testament book of Hebrews tries to show from the Old Testament that a new covenant will have a new law too.
Again, I find it interesting that you use the term "a new covenant" instead of "the new covenant."
-
Who is the real House of Israel?
A study of the first two chapters of Hosea shows us that Israel was to be cast off and divorced from God. They were to be scattered (“Jezreel”); they were to have no mercy (“Lo-ruhamah”); and they were to be no longer God’s people (“Lo-ammi”). But at the same time, God promised that they would be regathered under one Head (Jesus Christ) and come out of captivity. A decreed period; Ezekiel 4:4-6.
In fact, God told them He would “betroth thee unto Me in righteousness” (Hosea 2:19). The prophecy culminates with a Hebrew play on words. The name “Jezreel” means “God scatters,” but it also means “God sows.” (One must scatter the seed in order to sow it in the field.) Thus, at first the name prophesies that Israel was to be scattered; but ultimately it shows God’s Purpose—to sow Israel in the earth in order to multiply her as the sand of the sea, so as God will remain faithful to His promise to Abraham.
Hosea 2:23 And I will sow her unto Me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not My people, Thou art My people; and they shall say, Thou art My God.
In other words, even though God did indeed cast off His people Israel, scattering them in the nations by the hand of the Assyrians, God’s ultimate Purpose was to sow them in the earth, so that they would multiply and fulfill the promise to Abraham and the prophesies of Jacob and Moses.
Furthermore, Hosea prophesied that; in the very place (of their captivity) where it is said that they are not God’s people (Israel), they would be Christians known as; “the Sons of the living God." Hosea 1:10, Romans 9:24-26
The problem is that most Christians try to make the Jews fulfill these prophesies, when the House of Judah, is fact, fulfilling an entirely different set of prophecies. God in His great mercy has allowed them nearly 2000 years to change their hearts to Him and to accept Jesus as Messiah.
If people realized that the Jews are to fulfill the prophecies of the House of Judah, instead of those dealing with the lost House of Israel, they would not have made this mistake. The Jews were certainly “cast off” in 586 BC and again in 70-135 A.D., even as Israel was cast off during 745-712 B.C.—but the difference is that the prophets uniformly prophesy good things for lost Israel even during the time of their captivity; while severe judgments were pronounced upon Jerusalem and the Jewish people.
Note that Ezekiel 21:14 tells of 3 Judgements. The next one, to come; will be by the Hand of the Lord Himself. Ezekiel 21:1-7
In Jeremiah 18:1-10, God says that the House of Israel was marred in the Potter’s hand, so God was going to beat down the wet clay and remake it into a vessel fit for His use. Then beginning in verse 11, God begins to prophesy about Jerusalem and Judah. First comes an indictment for their sins, and then in Jeremiah 19:1-15 we see that Jeremiah was to take an old earthen vessel (as opposed to wet clay that was pliable), he was to go to the city dump and smash the earthen vessel there, saying: Even so will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again, and they shall bury them in Tophet, till there be no place to bury. Thus will I do unto this place, says the Lord, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even make this city as Tophet.
God’s choice of an allegory to suit each House is amazing!
An old clay vessel, once broken, cannot be remade into another vessel. Only wet, pliable clay can be used to remake a vessel. The House of Israel is like the pliable clay; but the House of Judah will be smashed and never again be built into a vessel of honor.
At the end of the first Temple era, God departed from it and Ezekiel saw the glory depart. Ezekiel 10:4-19 It has never returned to the Temple. Even when Zerubbabel rebuilt the Temple in 515 B.C., the glory did not return to it when they dedicated it to God. The work was good and was allowed by God, but the site itself was cursed.
This is consistent with the New Testament prophecies regarding the cursed fig tree, Matt. 21:21 the parable of the vineyard, Matt. 21:43-44 and the parable of the citizens who hated Him and would not allow Him to reign over them. Luke 19:27
The point is, these peoples must still be around to fulfill these distinct prophecies for Israel and for the cursed fig tree. The lost House of Israel must exist to be remade into another vessel and Judah must exist to be virtually wiped out. Isaiah 22:14
The problem comes when people think that the smashed vessel is going to be rebuilt into a vessel fit for God’s use, and when those same people wrongly think that the original House of Israel is lost forever and the Jews are the only Israel.
Plainly, the Christian peoples are the House of Israel, the Overcomers for God, as Jacob was. Jesus came to save the House of Israel, Matthew 15:24, who must be the Christian peoples; or Jesus failed in His mission.
The Jews will never change and Bible prophecy says they will be Judged and punished and only a remnant will survive.
-
The Jews will never change and Bible prophecy says they will be Judged and punished and only a remnant will survive.
I have no comment on the rest of your post, that's between you and the Christians here. But I will comment on the last line. The Jews who came back from the Babylonian exile were the remnant. And so today's Jews are also the remnant.
I've never seen anyone get so excited at the ideas that the Jews will be punished as you are.
-
I've never seen anyone get so excited at the ideas that the Jews will be punished as you are.
Antisemitism is actually extremely common in American Evangelical end times stuff (example: this thread).
Not to get into the political side of it, but to comment on the theological side: Christian "Zionism" is waaay less about God keeping his covenant promises to the Jews, and much more about the restoration of Israel being a catalyst for the end times... which is when, the same theology believes, the majority of Jews will follow the Antichrist and be killed by God in punishment. Whatever the political achievements might be, the theological aspect of this Christian teaching is not rooted in compassion for a historically oppressed people.
-
And when they return to God and the bible, they will come back out of exile.
Deuteronomy 30
Israel failed, was divorced from God, had their covenant agreement of the Law terminated, and then God restored them.
It's not God's law that fails. It's the people. But again, Deuteronomy 30 plainly states that we are capable of upholding the law.
Of course Israel could uphold the Law. Would God have judged them if they couldn't uphold the Law? No.
But they chose, as a nation, to turn against the Law of their God, which is what caused them to fall. God's Law did not fail--you're right about that.
It was Israel who failed, once the apostasy became so great that the entire nation was implicated. That's when God sent them into exile, signifying failure and divorce. Restoration does not mean failure had not resulted.
I've said repeatedly that exile equals divorce equals failure of the covenant of the Law
Yes, you have said it. But God didn't. So why should someone listen to you and ignore God?
You should always listen to God above all others. But if what I say corresponds to what God said, then you should listen to me too.
I've given you the Scriptures. God positively *divorced* the N. Kingdom of Israel. He was saying this to the S. Kingdom of Judah *prior to* divorcing them, as well.
I gave you a passage in Isaiah that confirms this. But you ignore it, or you argue around it.
The question you must answer is: Did God intend the idea of "divorce under the Law" to be expressed as *exile?* I believe so. If indeed that is so, both N. and S. Kingdoms were divorced!
-
The answer is: when sin within the nation becomes *national failure,* or national idolatry, then the curses of the Law kick in, which ultimately lead to exile.
Yes, they do. But what does God say at the end of the curses? Let's have a look at Lev 26:44. Again. Because you continually ignore its existence.
Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them.
I have *not* ignored this. I've addressed the idea of *restoration* after the failure every time! My argument remains the same: restoration does not mean a failure did not occur.
Here again is the scenario. The Law was a form of the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic promises will never fail, but the covenant under the form of the Law could and did fail. The curses of the Law show this. Once the nation had arrived at the stage of a full-scale national apostasy, failure of the covenant resulted.
And this failure was exemplified, in the curses of the Law, as national exile. It indicated the Law no longer protected them from their enemies, as the blessings of the Law clearly promised.
And so, "divorce" properly depicts a completely failed covenant, as between a man and a woman in marriage. God was "married" to Israel by covenant relationship under the Law. Once that form of the covenant failed, it could be called a "divorce," or a terminated contract.
Again, restoring Israel to God could still take place by mercy, and not by means of obedience under the Law. Having failed under the Law, obedience could not restore them--it was a failed covenant and no longer applicable.
But being that the Abrahamic promises could never fail, God could restore Israel apart from obedience under the Law, which is what I mean by restoration through *mercy.*
This restoration does not indicate the Law succeeded after all. It had clearly failed to keep Israel out of exile--it had failed. Israel had failed as a nation.
But they could be restored purely by God's mercy, giving them a second chance. This means the Law truly failed, and a divorce truly took place. But it also means the system could be reinstated by mercy, and begin to function as before.
Exile is the indicator that the Law had failed. The Law was in place to keep Israel in their land and in covenant with God.
No. The law was a condition of the covenant.
Positively false. The Law was a condition of the covenant yes, but it was also a means of protection against exile. It was designed so that if Israel generally obeyed God under the provisions of the Law God would give them victory over their enemies.
Going into exile means that Israel's enemies had defeated them. It was indication that the Law had failed to protect them, not because God failed as a partner in the covenant, but only because Israel failed as partner in the covenant.
A covenant implies two or more parties. In this case, Israel failed--not God.
-
Antisemitism is actually extremely common in American Evangelical end times stuff (example: this thread).
Not to get into the political side of it, but to comment on the theological side: Christian "Zionism" is waaay less about God keeping his covenant promises to the Jews, and much more about the restoration of Israel being a catalyst for the end times... which is when, the same theology believes, the majority of Jews will follow the Antichrist and be killed by God in punishment. Whatever the political achievements might be, the theological aspect of this Christian teaching is not rooted in compassion for a historically oppressed people.
Someone was telling me this today actually.
-
I have *not* ignored this. I've addressed the idea of *restoration* after the failure every time! My argument remains the same: restoration does not mean a failure did not occur.
Dude. The verse specifically says that God will not annul the covenant with the Jews. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Yet because you don't like it, you pretend it isn't saying exactly what it's saying.
Positively false. The Law was a condition of the covenant yes, but it was also a means of protection against exile.
The law isn't "protection" against anything. It's part of our covenant with God, and we carry it our regardless.
A covenant implies two or more parties. In this case, Israel failed--not God.
And under the conditions of that covenant, God sent us into exile. But as per Lev 26:44, the covenant itself remains in effect. In other words, we are still obligated to uphold it. Who should I listen to, you, or God?
Deut 4 The Lord will scatter you among the peoples, and only a few of you will survive among the nations to which the Lord will drive you. There you will worship man-made gods of wood and stone, which cannot see or hear or eat or smell. But if from there you seek the Lord your God, you will find him if you seek him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the Lord your God and obey him. For the Lord your God is a merciful God; He will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your ancestors, which he confirmed to them by oath.
-
I have *not* ignored this. I've addressed the idea of *restoration* after the failure every time! My argument remains the same: restoration does not mean a failure did not occur.
Dude. The verse specifically says that God will not annul the covenant with the Jews. It doesn't get any simpler than that. Yet because you don't like it, you pretend it isn't saying exactly what it's saying.
Respectfully, you're ignoring the bulk of the Scriptures I gave, indicating the covenant of marriage between God and Israel was, under the Law, cancelled. Again, the Abrahamic Covenant will *never* be cancelled. However, the Law, as a prohibiting element, could be cancelled, and was cancelled. And it was cancelled by necessity, not only because Israel failed their part in the contract, but also because all nations would fail in the same way. Fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant, on behalf of Israel and on behalf of all nations of faith, would be impossible if the Law remained in effect forever.
The Law was proof that mankind had fallen and would thereafter be disqualified from eternal life. Unless the Law was cancelled, and mercy alone established in its place, the covenant of international salvation could never be achieved. For mercy alone to be established, the Law's temporary provision for atonement had to be abandoned for a final provision for atonement, which became available through Christ's death and forgiveness.
Positively false. The Law was a condition of the covenant yes, but it was also a means of protection against exile.
The law isn't "protection" against anything. It's part of our covenant with God, and we carry it our regardless.
I've already proven that false. A simple reading of the blessings of obedience to the Law will show any objective party that part of the purpose of obeying the Law was for Israel to remain in their land, blessed, and free of outside oppression. It was a means of avoiding outside conquest and exile for punishment, should the nation fall into disobedience.
A covenant implies two or more parties. In this case, Israel failed--not God.
And under the conditions of that covenant, God sent us into exile. But as per Lev 26:44, the covenant itself remains in effect. In other words, we are still obligated to uphold it. Who should I listen to, you, or God?
The covenant was broken, period. God's choice to maintain certain elements of it did not mean it hadn't been broken. It just meant He planned to restore it...this time. There was no promise He would *always* restore it.
The fact of the Law's being broken, even while parts of it were still obeyed, is indicated in the fact the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices had been taken away. How is the loss of that meaning that the Law was still in operation?
At best, only parts of the Law remained in effect, just as moral virtue had always been important to God, even before the Law. The fact God still wanted to restore the Law was indicative not that it hadn't been broken, but that salvation remained under the cloud of human fallenness, without a means of final atonement for sin.
As you know, I believe that Christ was God's chosen means of final atonement for sin, since the Law could only provide *temporary* provisions for forgiveness. So until Christ had come, died, and forgiven Israel and the world, the Law was Israel's only means of temporary provision for sin, to keep a relationship with God, even when the Law had been broken. Parts of the Law, therefore, were kept in operation.
-
Respectfully, you're ignoring the bulk of the Scriptures I gave, indicating the covenant of marriage between God and Israel was, under the Law, cancelled.
There is no place where the covenant says that the law can be *cancelled*. None. Exile is part of the covenant, not a cancelation of it. Lev 26:44 specifically says that the covenant will never be canceled.
Again, the Abrahamic Covenant will *never* be cancelled. However, the Law, as a prohibiting element, could be cancelled, and was cancelled.
This is not in the bible.
And it was cancelled by necessity, not only because Israel failed their part in the contract,
Israel didn't fail. They fell short, but God specifically says that they can redeem themselves. How? By following the law. Deuteronomy 30 (again)
When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you.
See? Obedience to the law ends the exile.
More: You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
but also because all nations would fail in the same way.
The nations were never expected to follow the Sinai covenant.
Fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant, on behalf of Israel and on behalf of all nations of faith, would be impossible if the Law remained in effect forever.
Lev 26:44 and Deut 30 explicitly say otherwise.
The Law was proof that mankind had fallen and would thereafter be disqualified from eternal life. Unless the Law was cancelled, and mercy alone established in its place, the covenant of international salvation could never be achieved. For mercy alone to be established, the Law's temporary provision for atonement had to be abandoned for a final provision for atonement, which became available through Christ's death and forgiveness.
This is Christian dogma. That's fine. It isn't Judaism however. We believe the opposite, that God gave us many laws to follow so that we could include Him in every part of our day, everywhere and anywhere we go.
I've already proven that false. A simple reading of the blessings of obedience to the Law will show any objective party that part of the purpose of obeying the Law was for Israel to remain in their land, blessed, and free of outside oppression.
The "purpose" of the law was to be God's holy people:
Israel at Sinai (Ex 19) Now if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, you will be My treasured possession out of all the nations—for the whole earth is Mine. And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’
Lev 11 For I am the LORD your God; consecrate yourselves, therefore, and be holy, because I am holy. You must not defile yourselves by any creature that crawls along the ground.
Lev 20 Consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and follow them. I am the Lord, who makes you holy.
etc etc
The covenant was broken, period.
God said He wouldn't break it. Why should I listen to a person and not God?
The fact of the Law's being broken, even while parts of it were still obeyed, is indicated in the fact the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices had been taken away. How is the loss of that meaning that the Law was still in operation?
Just because there's no temple doesn't mean there's no law. There was no temple between 586BC and 516BC yet the law remained in effect. And it's a good thing it did, because if everyone stopped following the law then, there would be no Jews left in the first century, no temple, and no Jesus.
At best, only parts of the Law remained in effect
Oh and we're allowed to just pick and choose? LOL, no.
As you know, I believe that Christ was God's chosen means of final atonement for sin
I don't believe in "final atonement".
-
There is no place where the covenant says that the law can be *cancelled*. None.
He keeps claiming this, but also keeps failing to actually quote where it says it when repeatedly asked. If only he would quote where the Torah says what he claims it says, this would be put to rest. Patterns of dishonesty running amuck right now...
-
There is no place where the covenant says that the law can be *cancelled*. None.
He keeps claiming this, but also keeps failing to actually quote where it says it when repeatedly asked. If only he would quote where the Torah says what he claims it says, this would be put to rest. Patterns of dishonesty running amuck right now...
What a ruse. I'm "dishonest" because you disagree with my answer. Again, the words used to express the cancellation of the Law are words that you don't think mean cancellation. But to me they do--it's obvious to see that these words can mean cancellation.
So you just disagree. To call it "dishonest" is a ruse. And I don't respect that. Honest disagreements should be acknowledge as such. For Fenris and you to agree on this is just called "piling on." And I respect neither of you for it.
So I reiterate, just to defend myself for others--I don't expect anything good out of you. Here are the words that mean "cancellation."
Isaiah called it a divorce, meant to apply not just to N. Israel, but also to Judah. The argument that God was willing to forgive did not nullify the divorce--it just meant mercy would be applied *after* the divorce.
The curses of the Law given late in Deuteronomy indicate the nation would go into captivity, if the process of deterioration could not be stopped. This exile is a word that expresses the *cancellation* of the blessings promised for keeping the Law intact.
When an agreement to preserve a nation in their land is broken by one of the parties, then God can surrender the agreement, or cancel it. And the sign it is cancelled is when the nation is no longer blessed in the land, when they are exiled.
You may not like the line of reasoning, but I know it's reasonable. You just don't like it. And so you resort to ad hominem, which I don't respect at all. Be happy with yourself. I hope you sleep well at night? ;)
I won't continue to argue with a bad spirit, without a generous spirit that is cooperative and respectful.
-
Isaiah called it a divorce
He says the opposite. We've discussed this already.
“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away."
The curses of the Law given late in Deuteronomy indicate the nation would go into captivity, if the process of deterioration could not be stopped. This exile is a word that expresses the *cancellation* of the blessings promised for keeping the Law intact.
The exile is punishment for not obeying. On the other hand, Deuteronomy says when we obey again, the exile ends. Magic!
In a more meta sense, Deuteronomy says that we have a choice to make: See chapter 11 Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse. The blessing, that you will heed the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today; and the curse, if you will not heed the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn away from the way I command you this day, to follow other gods, which you did not know.
The fact that God presents it as a choice means that it's not impossible. Then God would just say "You guys can't do this. Give up."
When an agreement to preserve a nation in their land is broken by one of the parties, then God can surrender the agreement, or cancel it.
I know this seems very clever to you, but it isn't in the bible. God in fact says the opposite. Lev 26, again.
-
Isaiah called it a divorce
He says the opposite. We've discussed this already.
“Where is your mother’s certificate of divorce with which I sent her away? Or to which of my creditors did I sell you? Because of your sins you were sold; because of your transgressions your mother was sent away."
Yes, we've discussed it. But you ignore the part where it says "because of your sins you were sold." That is a synonym for "divorce!"
I recognize that the verse also says "where is the certificate of divorce?" This isn't denying the divorce happened--only suggesting that at some point it will no longer be recognized. It will purposely get lost!
So who is right in this? I am. The verse plainly states, as a matter of fact, that the divorce happened. "You were sold." This isn't a matter of opinion. This is a matter of believing what is said.
The curses of the Law given late in Deuteronomy indicate the nation would go into captivity, if the process of deterioration could not be stopped. This exile is a word that expresses the *cancellation* of the blessings promised for keeping the Law intact.
The exile is punishment for not obeying. On the other hand, Deuteronomy says when we obey again, the exile ends. Magic!
We both agree that exile was punishment for not obeying. But I'm saying something beyond this. I'm saying that "exile" was a synonym for "divorce," and was used as such, as a legal abrogation of an agreement to bless in the land.
In a more meta sense, Deuteronomy says that we have a choice to make: See chapter 11 Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse. The blessing, that you will heed the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today; and the curse, if you will not heed the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn away from the way I command you this day, to follow other gods, which you did not know.
The fact that God presents it as a choice means that it's not impossible. Then God would just say "You guys can't do this. Give up."
When did I ever say the Hebrew people could not obey the Law? The fact that they could not extinguish sin from their lives kept them from eternal salvation. But temporal examples of salvation, such as victory in war, were certainly possible by keeping the Law.
I think you're arguing against some misconstrued Christian expressions about this. Clearly, Israel could keep the Law. They just couldn't get eternal salvation for the nation without the atonement Christ came to bring. That act covered their sin nature, allowing them access to eternal life.
When Israel, however, turned against the Law as a nation, national apostasy resulted, and the Law was cancelled. It was a failed agreement, a nullified contract. When one of the parties fails to perform, the contract is dead.
Israel's failure under the Law, through national apostasy, was, as you suggest, forgivable, and Israel could and was restored. Today restoration is in process, but is not yet complete.
When an agreement to preserve a nation in their land is broken by one of the parties, then God can surrender the agreement, or cancel it.
I know this seems very clever to you, but it isn't in the bible. God in fact says the opposite. Lev 26, again.
It has nothing to do with being "clever." I want to see Israel saved for all time--not be clever! This is just contract law 101, and you know it. A broken contract is used as a metaphor and also as a reality in the Law. When a party broke the contract, it failed, and Isaiah said Israel was sent away, which was intended to mean "divorce."
This could and has been fixed. But fixing it today obviously is a different animal. It only took 70 years to return from Babylon. But it's been 2000 years since the fall to the Romans in 70 AD. Is it any coincidence that this was the time that Jesus was crucified? He was descended from Abraham, brother--he was a Jew!
-
Yes, we've discussed it. But you ignore the part where it says "because of your sins you were sold." That is a synonym for "divorce!"
Not in English or Hebrew. Maybe ancient Greek?
I recognize that the verse also says "where is the certificate of divorce?" This isn't denying the divorce happened--only suggesting that at some point it will no longer be recognized. It will purposely get lost!
You're just making this up as you go.
So who is right in this? I am. The verse plainly states, as a matter of fact, that the divorce happened. "You were sold."
"Where is the certificate of divorce? You were sold for your sins." The oppsite of what you said. Again.
We both agree that exile was punishment for not obeying. But I'm saying something beyond this. I'm saying that "exile" was a synonym for "divorce," and was used as such, as a legal abrogation of an agreement to bless in the land.
You're saying it. But God said the opposite. Who should I listen to?
Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God
When did I ever say the Hebrew people could not obey the Law?
You've said that it was impossible.
quote] The fact that they could not extinguish sin from their lives kept them from eternal salvation.[/quote]The bible doesn't say anything about "extinguishing sin" or "eternal salvation".
I think you're arguing against some misconstrued Christian expressions about this. Clearly, Israel could keep the Law. They just couldn't get eternal salvation for the nation without the atonement Christ came to bring.
Buuuut that isn't in the bible. I mean, you have to accept the NT as holy writ to believe that.
When Israel, however, turned against the Law as a nation, national apostasy resulted, and the Law was cancelled. It was a failed agreement, a nullified contract. When one of the parties fails to perform, the contract is dead.
But that's not what the bible says.
It has nothing to do with being "clever." I want to see Israel saved for all time--not be clever!
Has nothing to do with what the bible says, though.
This is just contract law 101, and you know it.
Uh, I would be very careful about applying human laws to God. Just saying.
This could and has been fixed. But fixing it today obviously is a different animal. It only took 70 years to return from Babylon. But it's been 2000 years since the fall to the Romans in 70 AD. Is it any coincidence that this was the time that Jesus was crucified?
Jesus wasn't crucified in the year 70.
He was descended from Abraham, brother--he was a Jew!
And he was crucified by the Romans, just as another 100,000 Jews were.
-
Like... if God wanted to tell Israel that their laws were an everlasting command, never to be revoked, never to be "transformed", never to be terminated once they were "spiritually fulfilled" by a messiah centuries later... how else could he have possibly said it than "this is an everlasting command", "you must keep these commands forever in all your generations", "do not ever change these commands"?
Well, this is the crux of it. It's one of the reasons that Christianity is a hard sell to observant Jews.
The Hebrew word in those verses is ‛ôlâm. Almost every time the word ôlâm appears in the tôrâh (the Law), the King James, as well as a number of other English versions of the Bible, translate the word variously as "forever", "everlasting", or "eternal”, but depending on the context of the verse where it appears, that’s not necessarily what ôlâm means.
In the ancient Hebrew text it’s employed whenever the beginning or the end of any period being spoken of, is not known. It’s “the vanishing point” of that period, and there are many parts of Biblical scripture where it does not mean "forever and ever", for example,
1 Samuel 27:8
"And David and his men went up and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites. For they were of old (ôlâm) the inhabitants of the land, as you come into Shur, even into the land of Egypt."
Joshua 24:2
"And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time (ôlâm), Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods."
Deuteronomy 32:7
"Remember the days of old (ôlâm); consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you."
Psalm 143:3
"For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has beaten my life down to the ground; he has made me dwell in darkness, as those long (ôlâm) dead”
Deuteronomy 15:12, 16 & 17
If your brother (a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman), is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
But if he loves you and your house because it has been good for him with you, and he says to you, “I will not go away from you”, then you shall take an awl and put it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever (ôlâm). And you shall do the same for your slave-girl."
Young’s Literal Translation of verse 17:
“..and he hath been to thee a servant age-during (ôlâm); and also to thy handmaid thou dost do so."
1 Kings 9:3 (regarding the temple Solomon built):
"And the Lord said to him (to Solomon), I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built,
to put my name there for ever (ôlâm); and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there all the days."
There are many other examples, but you probably already think that I'm going to stay on this road “for ôlâm”, so before we turn off this road, let’s quickly look at a few verses where ôlâm DOES mean “forever & ever in perpetuity”:-
Proverbs 8:22-23
"The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting (ôlâm), from the beginning, or ever the earth was."
Genesis 21:33
"And Abraham planted a tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the everlasting (ôlâm) God."
Deuteronomy 32:40
"For I lift up My hand to Heaven and say, I live forever (ôlâm)"
The covenant based on the Law was the marriage-covenant between God and Israel, but it was based on obedience to tôrâh and was repeatedly broken because the "wife" repeatedly broke her "vow":
Exodus 24:7-8
"And he (Moses) took the book of the covenant, and read in the ears of the people.
And they said, All that the LORD has said we will do, and be obedient.
And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words."
The elect did not obey because like all who are born of the flesh and begotten of a descendant of Adam, they could not obey:
Romans 7:14-23
"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do, I know not. For what I desire, that I do not do; but what I hate, that I do.
If then I do that which I do not desire, I consent to the law that it is good. But now it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing. For to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I do not find.
For I do not do the good that I desire; but the evil which I do not will, that I do. But if I do what I do not desire, it is no more I working it out, but sin dwelling in me.
I find then a law: when I will to do the right, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin being in my members."
Isiah 24:5
"And the land is defiled under its people; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, and have broken the everlasting (‛ôlâm) covenant."
Young's Literal Translation: “They have made void a covenant age-during (‛ôlâm)."
They BROKE the covenant. But God, in His mercy, promised a NEW Covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31-32 "Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; WHICH COVENANT OF MINE THEY BROKE, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD."
The first covenant was ratified with blood – the blood of an animal:
Exodus 24:8 "Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD has made with you concerning all these words."
Christ's blood is the blood of the New Covenant:
Matthew 26;28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."
Romans 7:2-4 "For the married woman was bound by tôrâh to the living husband. But if the husband is dead, she is set free from the tôrâh of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she is married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.
But if the husband dies, she is free from the tôrâh, so that she is no adulteress by becoming another man's wife.
So, my brothers, you also have become dead to the tôrâh BY THE BODY OF CHRIST so that you should be married to Another, even to Him raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God."
2 Corinthians 5:17
"So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new."
Hebrews 10:1a "For the tôrâh which has a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things,"
Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths. For these are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ."
The shadow of the Law (tôrâh) was abolished in the flesh of Christ (Eph 2:15):
"having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them"
Romans 2:27 "And if the uncircumcized fulfill (Greek: teléō) the Law (tôrâh), shall this fact not judge you, who through the letter of tôrâh and your circumcision become transgressors of tôrâh?"
What does this mean, “if the uncircumsized fulfill (Greek: teléō) the Law”? Is it a contradiction of the above things?
No. It’s not a contradiction. The Greek word used by Paul in Romans 2:27 is not hypakoḗ (obey), but teléō (fulfill), which is the same word Christ used as He died on the cross when He said, “It is teléō (fulfilled, finished)” (John 19:30).
The word teléō does not mean obey, it means to fulfill: The Strong’s Greek Dictionary defines it as: to end, i.e. complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt):--accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform.
When asked, "Master, which is the great commandment in tôrâh (the Law)?", Jesus replied,
Matthew 22:37-40 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."
Both of the above Jesus Himself fulfilled completely, and to its completion: John 15:13 "No one has greater love than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill.".
"Then when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, It is teléō! (fulfilled, finished). And He bowed His head and gave up the spirit." (John 19:30).
The only way the Law can be fulfilled is if it’s obeyed. We could not obey the Law. Jesus obeyed it for us and on our behalf:
These two laws, of which the entire tôrâh is the shadow, is fulfilled in us by Christ in us:
John 15:4-5 "Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."
Philippians 2:13 "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure."
Galatians 5:22-25 "But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, self-control; against such things there is no law. But those belonging to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."
Romans 13:8-10 "Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
Galatians 5:14 "For all the Law (tôrâh) is fulfilled in one word, even in this, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
The tôrâh is the shadow. Christ is the body. We live by faith in Christ. The Law and the covenant based on obedience to it, is gone, and that which has become old is ready to fade away (Hebrews 8:13).
This was the gospel from the beginning, the gospel of Christ and His apostles (which is why so many Jews of the first century rejected Christ, and why so many have rejected Christ ever since):
“Israel, who followed after a law of righteousness did not arrive at a law of righteousness. Why? Because it was not of faith, but as it were by the works of the Law. For they stumbled at that Stumbling-stone;
as it is written, "Behold, I lay in Zion a Stumbling-stone and a Rock-of-offense, and everyone believing on Him shall not be put to shame." (Romans 9:31-33)
-
I'm Postrib and also believe in the future salvation of national Israel. I think it's important to state this because many Postribs reject Israel in prophecy altogether, or reinterpret it to apply to the international Church.
Let me say, first of all, that there is a difference between the biblical view of national salvation and the biblical view of individual salvation. National salvation has more to do with the survival of the entire society rather than with spiritual salvation.
But these things are obviously tied together. God said that without spirituality and without obedience, a nation will not be saved. It will ultimately perish or suffer significant judgment.
Many get confused about this because they think that saving a society is not important in relation to saving an individual. Actually, both are important to God--both nations and individuals. The nation protects the individual, and thus provides a healthy spiritual climate for the individual if the nation is itself generally spiritual, or tolerant of spirituality.
The problem with Postribs who deny the place of national Israel in prophecy is that God did indeed promise this to Abraham. And God doesn't break His promises. Though the Early Church gave up hope in Israel's future salvation because Israel didn't repent, this does not mean that after many generations God cannot begin again with Israel, and ultimately refine her through the fires of His judgment.
So I do believe in Israel's future salvation, and also in the salvation of other nations--primarily Christian nations. Like Israel, many Christian nations have fallen on hard times, and have come under divine punishment. If Israel can be saved, so can these former Christian nations.
So where in the Bible do we see the salvation of Christian nations? We don't, because when the Bible was written Christian nations did not yet exist. And yet God promised them to Abraham. He was promised he would become father of a multitude of nations.
The problem I see with Pretribs and their Dispensationalism is that not only are they wrong about Pretrib itself, but also wrong to emphasize Israel's salvation through the lens of OT realities. They see Israel as returning to the Law, and they see Israel as still an exclusive nation in a sea of pagan nations.
That reality has changed, although some of it remains true. Whereas the nations ultimately capitulate to paganism it is not true that other nations did not become nations of God. Many nations have become Christian nations. They just ultimately fall, as Israel did. All nations do, ultimately, turn against Israel.
So the idea is to recognize that Israel is no longer alone in prophecy, and the future will involve not just Israel's recovery, but also the recovery of many other nations, formerly of faith. And most certainly, there will be no return to the Law. If all nations oppose Israel, they also oppose the idea of "Christian nations." They will stand not in opposition to the practice of the Law of Moses, but rather, in opposition to Christ and to those promised to Christ.
I'm Premil, Non-Disp Post-Trib (I think Keraz is too, which I think is the basis of his interpretations of prophetic scripture). But so is something else I agree with Keraz about, and I posted this in his thread, but will repeat it here, to let you know why I partially agree and partially disagree with you:
Judah/Judea and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are only one part of Messiah's Kingdom. The New Covenant in Jer 31:31 was promised to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Ephraim's seed was going to become a multitude of nations (or "fullness of the Gentiles" in the Hebrew text), Gen 48:19.
The house of Israel is called both Ephraim (collectively) in scripture as well as the house of Israel. Paul applied the prophecy in Hosea 1:9-10 which referred only to the house of Israel (not to the house of Judah) to Gentiles in Romans 9:24-26, and he wrote this even before he wrote about the "unnatural branches" who believe in Jesus being grafted in among the believing remnant of the natural branches (Rom 11:17). "Unnatural branches" = "Not genetically descended".
So I do believe that Israel is made up of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, the house of Israel having now become a multitude of nations: Gentiles who are grafted into Israel through faith in Christ, regardless of their genetic ancestry.
But Israel can only be those who are in Christ. I hope too for the grafting in of of all Jews, ie "National Israel" or all the genetic seed, and because Paul seems to imply this is going to happen (and for other reasons), I believe there is a Biblical basis for this hope.
-
The Hebrew word in those verses is ‛ôlâm. Almost every time the word ôlâm appears in the tôrâh (the Law), the King James, as well as a number of other English versions of the Bible, translate the word variously as "forever", "everlasting", or "eternal”, but depending on the context of the verse where it appears, that’s not necessarily what ôlâm means.
Ummm yeah. So, we know how to read Hebrew and we know what the word "Olam" means.
In the ancient Hebrew text it’s employed whenever the beginning or the end of any period being spoken of, is not known. It’s “the vanishing point” of that period, and there are many parts of Biblical scripture where it does not mean "forever and ever", for example,
1 Samuel 27:8
"And David and his men went up and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites. For they were of old (ôlâm) the inhabitants of the land, as you come into Shur, even into the land of Egypt."
The word is מֵֽעוֹלָ֔ם "May-Olam". It means "from forever" and is obviously a poetic way of saying "a long time ago".
Joshua 24:2
"And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time (ôlâm), Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods."
Same as above.
Deuteronomy 32:7
"Remember the days of old (ôlâm); consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you."
Again, this means "a very long time ago. You're not being very convincing here.
Psalm 143:3
"For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has beaten my life down to the ground; he has made me dwell in darkness, as those long (ôlâm) dead”
Again, a past event "a long time ago". This is getting boring.
Deuteronomy 15:12, 16 & 17
If your brother (a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman), is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
But if he loves you and your house because it has been good for him with you, and he says to you, “I will not go away from you”, then you shall take an awl and put it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever (ôlâm). And you shall do the same for your slave-girl."
"Forever" obviously means "for the rest of his life".
There are many other examples, but you probably already think that I'm going to stay on this road “for ôlâm”, so before we turn off this road, let’s quickly look at a few verses where ôlâm DOES mean “forever & ever in perpetuity”:-
OK, I have a better idea. You're mostly quoting the NT here, which I do not consider holy writ. So here's my challenge. This is a quote from Lev 23, speaking about the observance of Yom Kippur. It says the following: You shall not perform any work. This is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.
Note the specific phraseology. "Eternal statute" "throughout your generations" "in all your dwelling places". That seems, to me, to mean "forever". But let's pretend you're right, it's temporary. If God intended it to be forever, what else could He say that would be to your satisfaction to mean "forever"?
-
The Hebrew word in those verses is ‛ôlâm. Almost every time the word ôlâm appears in the tôrâh (the Law), the King James, as well as a number of other English versions of the Bible, translate the word variously as "forever", "everlasting", or "eternal”, but depending on the context of the verse where it appears, that’s not necessarily what ôlâm means.
Ummm yeah. So, we know how to read Hebrew and we know what the word "Olam" means.
In the ancient Hebrew text it’s employed whenever the beginning or the end of any period being spoken of, is not known. It’s “the vanishing point” of that period, and there are many parts of Biblical scripture where it does not mean "forever and ever", for example,
1 Samuel 27:8
"And David and his men went up and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites. For they were of old (ôlâm) the inhabitants of the land, as you come into Shur, even into the land of Egypt."
The word is מֵֽעוֹלָ֔ם "May-Olam". It means "from forever" and is obviously a poetic way of saying "a long time ago".
Joshua 24:2
"And Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time (ôlâm), Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods."
Same as above.
Deuteronomy 32:7
"Remember the days of old (ôlâm); consider the years of many generations. Ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you."
Again, this means "a very long time ago. You're not being very convincing here.
Psalm 143:3
"For the enemy has pursued my soul; he has beaten my life down to the ground; he has made me dwell in darkness, as those long (ôlâm) dead”
Again, a past event "a long time ago". This is getting boring.
Deuteronomy 15:12, 16 & 17
If your brother (a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman), is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you.
But if he loves you and your house because it has been good for him with you, and he says to you, “I will not go away from you”, then you shall take an awl and put it through his ear to the door, and he shall be your servant forever (ôlâm). And you shall do the same for your slave-girl."
"Forever" obviously means "for the rest of his life".
There are many other examples, but you probably already think that I'm going to stay on this road “for ôlâm”, so before we turn off this road, let’s quickly look at a few verses where ôlâm DOES mean “forever & ever in perpetuity”:-
OK, I have a better idea. You're mostly quoting the NT here, which I do not consider holy writ. So here's my challenge. This is a quote from Lev 23, speaking about the observance of Yom Kippur. It says the following: You shall not perform any work. This is an eternal statute throughout your generations in all your dwelling places.
Note the specific phraseology. "Eternal statute" "throughout your generations" "in all your dwelling places". That seems, to me, to mean "forever". But let's pretend you're right, it's temporary. If God intended it to be forever, what else could He say that would be to your satisfaction to mean "forever"?
Well the New Testament and words of Christ and His apostles and death and resurrection of Christ and promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-33 etc etc etc etc is proof that the way you choose to interpret olam in all the Law containing that word is a matter of belief, but the way you're interpreting it sometimes as "since a very long time ago" etc and sometimes as "forever and ever in perpetuity" is inconsistent. At least the Young's Literal translation is 100% consistent in that it always translates it as "age-during" ie enduring until the end of the age, whatever the time-span was for the age.
-
...
So...you're not going to answer my question, then.
-
I'm Postrib and also believe in the future salvation of national Israel. I think it's important to state this because many Postribs reject Israel in prophecy altogether, or reinterpret it to apply to the international Church.
Let me say, first of all, that there is a difference between the biblical view of national salvation and the biblical view of individual salvation. National salvation has more to do with the survival of the entire society rather than with spiritual salvation.
But these things are obviously tied together. God said that without spirituality and without obedience, a nation will not be saved. It will ultimately perish or suffer significant judgment.
Many get confused about this because they think that saving a society is not important in relation to saving an individual. Actually, both are important to God--both nations and individuals. The nation protects the individual, and thus provides a healthy spiritual climate for the individual if the nation is itself generally spiritual, or tolerant of spirituality.
The problem with Postribs who deny the place of national Israel in prophecy is that God did indeed promise this to Abraham. And God doesn't break His promises. Though the Early Church gave up hope in Israel's future salvation because Israel didn't repent, this does not mean that after many generations God cannot begin again with Israel, and ultimately refine her through the fires of His judgment.
So I do believe in Israel's future salvation, and also in the salvation of other nations--primarily Christian nations. Like Israel, many Christian nations have fallen on hard times, and have come under divine punishment. If Israel can be saved, so can these former Christian nations.
So where in the Bible do we see the salvation of Christian nations? We don't, because when the Bible was written Christian nations did not yet exist. And yet God promised them to Abraham. He was promised he would become father of a multitude of nations.
The problem I see with Pretribs and their Dispensationalism is that not only are they wrong about Pretrib itself, but also wrong to emphasize Israel's salvation through the lens of OT realities. They see Israel as returning to the Law, and they see Israel as still an exclusive nation in a sea of pagan nations.
That reality has changed, although some of it remains true. Whereas the nations ultimately capitulate to paganism it is not true that other nations did not become nations of God. Many nations have become Christian nations. They just ultimately fall, as Israel did. All nations do, ultimately, turn against Israel.
So the idea is to recognize that Israel is no longer alone in prophecy, and the future will involve not just Israel's recovery, but also the recovery of many other nations, formerly of faith. And most certainly, there will be no return to the Law. If all nations oppose Israel, they also oppose the idea of "Christian nations." They will stand not in opposition to the practice of the Law of Moses, but rather, in opposition to Christ and to those promised to Christ.
I'm Premil, Non-Disp Post-Trib (I think Keraz is too, which I think is the basis of his interpretations of prophetic scripture). But so is something else I agree with Keraz about, and I posted this in his thread, but will repeat it here, to let you know why I partially agree and partially disagree with you:
I disagree with Keraz on a number of matters, not the least of which is his notion that the lost tribes of Israel, the N. Kingdom, now comprises the Gentile Church. This is a switch in definitions of "Israel" to something other than Israel. And so, it is confusing and incorrect, as I see it.
Judah/Judea and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin are only one part of Messiah's Kingdom. The New Covenant in Jer 31:31 was promised to both the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Ephraim's seed was going to become a multitude of nations (or "fullness of the Gentiles" in the Hebrew text), Gen 48:19.
Of course the promise was made to both Israel and Judah, because both were part of the nation Israel. It was predicted that they would eventually become one nation again, in the future. Judah later became associated with the remnant of Israel, coming to represent the Jewish People from all 12 tribes. After the N. and S. kingdoms split, many came down to Judah from the N. Kingdom to worship the Lord, properly, in Jerusalem. And thus, Judah eventually came to represent the union of both kingdoms into one nation, consisting of all 12 tribes.
The house of Israel is called both Ephraim (collectively) in scripture as well as the house of Israel.
The N. Kingdom of Israel was referred to as "Ephraim" at times because Ephraim was one of the largest and most important tribes in the N. Kingdom. A major source of idol worship was located there to unify religion, illicitly, in the N. and not, properly, in the S.
Paul applied the prophecy in Hosea 1:9-10 which referred only to the house of Israel (not to the house of Judah) to Gentiles in Romans 9:24-26, and he wrote this even before he wrote about the "unnatural branches" who believe in Jesus being grafted in among the believing remnant of the natural branches (Rom 11:17). "Unnatural branches" = "Not genetically descended".
Paul quoted these verses in connection with the Jewish People. He was showing, in principle, that if Israel could be saved after being cut off, then those currently cut off, namely the Gentiles, could be grafted in.
So I do believe that Israel is made up of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, the house of Israel having now become a multitude of nations: Gentiles who are grafted into Israel through faith in Christ, regardless of their genetic ancestry.
No, Israel is not the Gentiles and never is this equation made. This confuses terms. Furthermore, Israel and Judah long ago ceased being divided into two entities--as far back as the Persian Restoration.
But Israel can only be those who are in Christ. I hope too for the grafting in of of all Jews, ie "National Israel" or all the genetic seed, and because Paul seems to imply this is going to happen (and for other reasons), I believe there is a Biblical basis for this hope.
Well yes, God specifically promised it, and Paul said God's promises cannot be broken. Israel must be restored. That's why I'm premillennial--there has to be a time when this happens. That's why Satan must be bound, so that it can happen. That's why Christ returns, so that the wicked can be cut off from within Israel and from outside of Israel, enabling the full restoration and spiritual revitalization of Israel.
-
I disagree with Keraz on a number of matters, not the least of which is his notion that the lost tribes of Israel, the N. Kingdom, now comprises the Gentile Church. This is a switch in definitions of "Israel" to something other than Israel. And so, it is confusing and incorrect, as I see it.
I don't believe and will never believe that any human - Jew or Gentile - who is not in Christ is considered "Israel" by God. God is no respecter of persons, not even of Abraham's unbelieving genetic descendants. John the Baptist pointed that out, Jesus stated it, and Paul stated it.
Judah later became associated with the remnant of Israel, coming to represent the Jewish People from all 12 tribes. After the N. and S. kingdoms split, many came down to Judah from the N. Kingdom to worship the Lord, properly, in Jerusalem. And thus, Judah eventually came to represent the union of both kingdoms into one nation, consisting of all 12 tribes.
The prophecy in Hosea 1:6-11 does not refer to the small minority you are talking about who remained part of Israel by being amalgamated into the house of Judah:
"And she conceived again and bore a daughter. And God said to him, Call her name No-mercy, for I will no more have mercy on the house of Israel. But I will utterly take them away."
"utterly take them away" = utterly take them away.
But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
And when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and bore a son. And He said, Call his name Not-my-people. For you are not My people, and I will not be for you.
Yet the number of the sons of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered. And it shall be, in the place where it was said to them, You are not My people, there it shall be said to them, You are the sons of the living God.
Then the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel shall be gathered together, and shall set over themselves one head, "
[ The rest of the verse, "and they shall come up out of the land. For great shall be the day of Jezreel." is a repeat of what had already been said about the defeat of the N Kingdom (Ephraim/the house of Israel) by the Assyrians, which is typical of the style of prophetic language, i.e to repeat something already said earlier, again at the end of the prophecy, especially since it was the main thrust of God's prophetic Word to Ephraim/the house of Israel. ]
So only by a very long stretch of the imagination can the above prophecy be referring to the small remnant who were later to be exiled in Babylon with the Jews.
No, Israel is not the Gentiles and never is this equation made. This confuses terms. Furthermore, Israel
The equation is indeed made that the Gentiles who believe in Jesus are Israel as much as Jews who believe in Jesus are Israel, and this is stated repeatedly, for example John 8:39; Eph 2:19; Gal 3:7 (through Jesus, as stated in Gal 3:16); Gal 3:29, etc (still more places).
Judah long ago ceased being divided into two entities--as far back as the Persian Restoration.
Only with regard to the small minority which fled to Judah when Assyria invaded. Again, Hosea 1:6-11 is not talking about them, unless one employs an imagination to re-interpret the plain meaning of the prophecy, and misinterprets it in the process.
The N. Kingdom of Israel was referred to as "Ephraim" at times because Ephraim was one of the largest and most important tribes in the N. Kingdom.
That does not change the fact that the N Kingdom is sometimes called "the house of Israel" and sometimes "Ephraim" in scripture, so your point is moot:
"For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within sixty-five years Ephraim shall be broken so that it shall not be a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established." Isa 7:8
A major source of idol worship was located there to unify religion, illicitly, in the N. and not, properly, in the S.
Which is why Ephraim was destroyed and the vast majority exiled, over time become scattered among the nations where their descendants intermarried with Gentiles, so that there are no genetically "pure Israelites" anywhere anymore.
Ephraim has become a multitude of nations, or "the fullness of the Gentiles" as the Hebrew words state in Gen 48:19.
Paul applied the prophecy in Hosea 1:9-10 which referred only to the house of Israel (not to the house of Judah) to Gentiles in Romans 9:24-26, and he wrote this even before he wrote about the "unnatural branches" who believe in Jesus being grafted in among the believing remnant of the natural branches (Rom 11:17). "Unnatural branches" = "Not genetically descended".
Paul quoted these verses in connection with the Jewish People. He was showing, in principle, that if Israel could be saved after being cut off, then those currently cut off, namely the Gentiles, could be grafted in.
Exactly. That's why your insistence that there are two "Israel's" is moot, because the remnant of the one and the same Israel, which was the house of Judah (which remained after Ephraim/the house of Israel had been exiled and, as the prophecy stated, ceased to be a nation before God), ,
is the remnant of the house of Judah who were left after the unbelieving Jews had been broken off,. and this remnant of the house of Judah is the same remnant among whom the believing Gentiles were grafted in.
There is no "Gentiles Israel" + another Israel called "Jewish Israel" because Israel are ALL those who are in Christ - but there is indeed a "house of Israel/Ephraim" and a "house of Judah" which together are ONE Israel IN CHRIST whom Paul calls ALL ISRAEL in Romans 11:26.
Your "two Israels" creation is extra-Biblical.
"National Israel" in actual fact = the genetic seed who through faith in Christ are in Christ + the Gentiles who through faith in Christ are in Christ,
but I've granted that you are referring to the genetic seed of Abraham who are NOT in Christ when you talk about "national Israel".
So the only thing regarding the identity of Israel that we agree on then, is the possibility that all the genetic seed will one day believe, and hence once again be counted among God's Israel (Christ's flock) - but to me that is no reason to believe in a literal millennium. My belief in a literal millennium is based only upon Christ and His Kingdom, and what He has revealed - and no one who does not believe in Him is part of His Kingdom now, or will ever be.
-
I don't believe and will never believe that any human - Jew or Gentile - who is not in Christ is considered "Israel" by God. God is no respecter of persons, not even of Abraham's unbelieving genetic descendants. John the Baptist pointed that out, Jesus stated it, and Paul stated it.
The prophecy in Hosea 1:6-11 does not refer to the small minority you are talking about who remained part of Israel by being amalgamated into the house of Judah...
So only by a very long stretch of the imagination can the above prophecy be referring to the small remnant who were later to be exiled in Babylon with the Jews.
No, Israel is not the Gentiles and never is this equation made. This confuses terms. Furthermore, Israel
The equation is indeed made that the Gentiles who believe in Jesus are Israel as much as Jews who believe in Jesus are Israel, and this is stated repeatedly, for example John 8:39; Eph 2:19; Gal 3:7 (through Jesus, as stated in Gal 3:16); Gal 3:29, etc (still more places).
Judah long ago ceased being divided into two entities--as far back as the Persian Restoration.
Only with regard to the small minority which fled to Judah when Assyria invaded. Again, Hosea 1:6-11 is not talking about them, unless one employs an imagination to re-interpret the plain meaning of the prophecy, and misinterprets it in the process.
Paul quoted these verses in connection with the Jewish People. He was showing, in principle, that if Israel could be saved after being cut off, then those currently cut off, namely the Gentiles, could be grafted in.
Exactly. That's why your insistence that there are two "Israel's" is moot, because the remnant of the one and the same Israel, which was the house of Judah (which remained after Ephraim/the house of Israel had been exiled and, as the prophecy stated, ceased to be a nation before God), ,
is the remnant of the house of Judah who were left after the unbelieving Jews had been broken off,. and this remnant of the house of Judah is the same remnant among whom the believing Gentiles were grafted in.
There is no "Gentiles Israel" + another Israel called "Jewish Israel" because Israel are ALL those who are in Christ - but there is indeed a "house of Israel/Ephraim" and a "house of Judah" which together are ONE Israel IN CHRIST whom Paul calls ALL ISRAEL in Romans 11:26.
Your "two Israels" creation is extra-Biblical.
"National Israel" in actual fact = the genetic seed who through faith in Christ are in Christ + the Gentiles who through faith in Christ are in Christ,
but I've granted that you are referring to the genetic seed of Abraham who are NOT in Christ when you talk about "national Israel".
So the only thing regarding the identity of Israel that we agree on then, is the possibility that all the genetic seed will one day believe, and hence once again be counted among God's Israel (Christ's flock) - but to me that is no reason to believe in a literal millennium. My belief in a literal millennium is based only upon Christ and His Kingdom, and what He has revealed - and no one who does not believe in Him is part of His Kingdom now, or will ever be.
This is difficult to discuss, since you alter definitions of words like "Israel." You make "Israel" out to mean Christian Gentiles. That is Replacement Theology, and I disagree with it. Words mean what they mean, and you can't use biblical ideas to change the meaning of words!
I'm not talking about 2 Israels--you are! Israel was promised Abraham--a single nation! They were divided after the reign of Solomon, but only temporarily. God promised, through Ezekiel, that they would be restored to a single nation again.
That nation then was an evolved form of the S. Kingdom of Judah, which by that time had come to include a remnant of all 12 tribes. Those who had wanted to faithfully worship God in the S. Kingdom, in Jerusalem, had moved there. The N. Kingdom perished from history. Judah became the new unified Kingdom of Israel.
The verses used to prove a NT definition of the Gentile Church as "Israel" are sketchy, and don't provide definitive evidence. It's questionable whether certain NT texts are referring to the Gentile Church when mentioning "Israel." Or, it is conceivable that "Israel" is used metaphorically for the Church, but not literally.
Obviously, there are about 200 nations on earth right now, and biblical truth doesn't make their names meaningless. "Israel" does not become meaningless just because it isn't a Christian nation!
However, God's plan is to return the nation Israel into a godly nation once more. The idea of Israel's restoration is not a new concept, since Israel was restored from apostasy more than once. Israel can be called "Israel" even in a state of apostasy. And that's where Israel is today, just before Christ returns to restore her in the Millennium.
-
Romans 9-11 is not really that tough. We just have to get rid of our preconceived notions.
Original tree
Branches removed and stump left
Some wild olive branches grafted in
Some original olive branches granted back in
This is not complicated, yet we try to make this eschatological to match Chart 37-A, foldout B-14, Chart 11.
It simply says what it says.
-
...
So...you're not going to answer my question, then.
My entire post did answer your question.
quote (Young's Literal Translation)
Lev 23:21 and ye have proclaimed on this self-same day: a holy convocation is to you, ye do no servile work--a statute age-during in all your dwellings, to your generations.
Young's Literal Translation translates it as age-duing i.e enduring for the time-period of the Age, whatever that time-period may be. The YLT translates it like this because the word is again olam in the Hebrew.
Some English language Bibles translate it as it shall be a statute forever or as an eternal statute because that's the way they translate the word olam.
I'm not going to repeat this again because anyone can read the Young's Literal Translation and look up what word it translates as "age-during" each time it pops up in torah, because each time it's the word olam being used, and my Post # 96 explains it properly and does not need to be repeated. So if you ask again then instead of taking the bait and repeating myself, I'll ignore your post.
-
I find it interesting that the statement of a native Hebrew speaker is ignored in favor of a non-native Hebrew speaker, based apparently solely on the translator's position vis a vis Christian faith.
Just an interesting observation, that is, for all of us, it is very difficult to take our personal biases away from our interpretation of a text.
-
I find it interesting that the statement of a native Hebrew speaker is ignored in favor of a non-native Hebrew speaker, based apparently solely on the translator's position vis a vis Christian faith.
Just an interesting observation, that is, for all of us, it is very difficult to take our personal biases away from our interpretation of a text.
Since your post is strongly hinting at my previous post in this thread and due to the strong implication that you are answering my post because you are speaking about the ancient Hebrew text (which no modern Jew actually uses in his daily language but nevertheless understands), I'm replying to your post.
In post # 96 I gave some examples out of many where the same Hebrew word olam used repeatedly in the Law and translated as "forever", "eternal" etc in some English Bibles, does not necessarily mean "forever and ever in perpetuity", which is why the YLT translates it as "age-during:,
and I stated that it also CAN mean forever and ever, depending on the context of the verse in which it is used, and gave three examples of where the word olam does indeed mean "forever and ever in perpetuity",
I never translated the YLT so I took the trouble of looking to see if there are any verses in the Old Testament where olam does not mean forever and ever, and for places where it does indeed mean forever and ever.
Then I went on to give a Christian view of why the New Covenant replaced the Covenant of Law, which was a covenant that was based on obedience to the Law, and I quoted the scriptures which show this.
So as to your remark about biases: I'm a Christian. I believe in Jesus. So I speak from a Christian perspective. Live with it.
PS: I can and do live with the fact that some here do not speak from a Christian perspective, and I definitely will never disrespect their faith or attack their faith. I'm not saying the person had attacked my faith in his brief interaction with me in this thread. He did not. So I merely addressed his replies. But it seems you have a problem with that too, hence your silly post.
But anyone who has a problem with my "Christian biases" can live with it. Preferably all Christians should display a Christian bias in the things they say, instead of always trying to appease non-Christians even when those non-Christians directly attack and bash Christianity.
-
Hermeneutical error #1: Dictionaries are tools only, not any better or worse than the person or persons writing it. Writers of dictionaries bring their bias to their work, so checking with a speaker/reader of that language that includes that cultures' unique perspective is never a bad idea.
Hermeneutical error #2: We should NEVER bring a Christian bias to the Old Testament text. It is decidedly NOT a Christian text.
We should first seek to insure that the text we are ready is as reliable as possible in the text we are using.
Then, we should seek to understand, if at all possible, what the original reader or hearer would have understood. By direct context, that means that we should not read ANYTHING from a Christian perspective into the text.
Only after we believe that we have the best possible understanding of what the original hearer/reader understood, we should look for what their response was supposed to be.
Then, since we cannot respond exactly as they did, we should look for principles that survive and apply regardless of the original message and response.
While Christians -- from their perspective and bias -- may choose to interpret a text from an inferred Christian perspective, i.e., foreshadowing, typology, etc., we should never divorce ourselves from the initial steps of understanding "What was God trying to communicate to THOSE people, the original audience."
To do otherwise invites eisigesis, of which there is way too much in the Christian world.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
Is there a reason that you are so defensive, using words like "silly" and "appease" in a perjorative sense?
-
Hermeneutical error #1: Dictionaries are tools only, not any better or worse than the person or persons writing it. Writers of dictionaries bring their bias to their work, so checking with a speaker/reader of that language that includes that cultures' unique perspective is never a bad idea.
Hermeneutical error #2: We should NEVER bring a Christian bias to the Old Testament text. It is decidedly NOT a Christian text.
We should first seek to insure that the text we are ready is as reliable as possible in the text we are using.
Then, we should seek to understand, if at all possible, what the original reader or hearer would have understood. By direct context, that means that we should not read ANYTHING from a Christian perspective into the text.
Only after we believe that we have the best possible understanding of what the original hearer/reader understood, we should look for what their response was supposed to be.
Then, since we cannot respond exactly as they did, we should look for principles that survive and apply regardless of the original message and response.
While Christians -- from their perspective and bias -- may choose to interpret a text from an inferred Christian perspective, i.e., foreshadowing, typology, etc., we should never divorce ourselves from the initial steps of understanding "What was God trying to communicate to THOSE people, the original audience."
To do otherwise invites eisigesis, of which there is way too much in the Christian world.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
All I did was quote some verses where the word olam is clearly not meaning "forever and ever in perpetuity", and some verses where it clearly does mean "forever and ever in perpetuity". I never quoted all the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes where the word olam is used. I left it up to the reader to decide for himself what olam means, where.
I left off from there to give a Christian perspective on the law, and I'm not ashamed to have done so, though your post which answered mine strongly implied that I should be hanging my head in shame for giving the Christian perspective.
Is there a reason that you are so defensive, using words like "silly" and "appease" in a perjorative sense?
As above. My post is not defensive and not using those words in a perjorative sense at all, but merely answering the perjorative tone of each post you have made on this day, Tuesday, August 3rd, 2021 in response to any post I made.
I'm not going to bring the other thread where you did this into this one, but let me say this again:
I will not be hanging my head in shame for my Christian perspective, and I have a great amount of respect for any Jewish Rabbi who will not either (a) get into an "intellectual debate" in a forum which is about Judaism and their beliefs, when the person is not Jewish, does not believe in Judaism, and is bashing either Yahweh or the trouble He went to to establish their faith when He called Abraham out of Ur; or
(b) merely debating the validity of their faith, but without mocking it.
I have a strong idea that the Romans probably mocked Yahweh and Judaism in the hearing of the priests in the days of Jesus, because if they mocked Jesus while they whipped Him, they probably would have engaged in the same mocking of the Jews' religion with many Jews, simply because they had the power to do so.
I doubt, if that had happened, that the priests would have changed their beliefs or got into "intellectual debates" with any Roman who did so - it would merely (and understandably) have made the Jews hate the Romans even more than they did because of the cruel occupation.
So, I have no problem with someone's else's beliefs if he is not bashing mine, but I find it rather disconcerting that another Christian would have a problem with me debating the Law from a Christian perspective, and quite clearly, it is you who is being defensive and using words in a pejorative way.
Let's just both go back to prayer now, ask the Lord to forgive us for any sin we may have committed today, even the ones we don't know about, and show us where we have sinned, and abide in Him so that we can show the fruit of the Spirit without implying that protesting about a non-Christian bashing Christianity and insulting posters, and debating from a Christian perspective in a Christian forum, is what's unacceptable.
-
My entire post did answer your question.
quote (Young's Literal Translation)
Lev 23:21 and ye have proclaimed on this self-same day: a holy convocation is to you, ye do no servile work--a statute age-during in all your dwellings, to your generations.
Young's Literal Translation translates it as age-duing i.e enduring for the time-period of the Age, whatever that time-period may be. The YLT translates it like this because the word is again olam in the Hebrew.
Young's "Literal Translation" isn't literal at all. It's editorializing. If you're happy with that, good for you.
-
Since your post is strongly hinting at my previous post in this thread and due to the strong implication that you are answering my post because you are speaking about the ancient Hebrew text (which no modern Jew actually uses in his daily language but nevertheless understands)
The YLT bible translators don't know ancient Hebrew, so why is their translation more credible than people who speak Hebrew today?
-
Since your post is strongly hinting at my previous post in this thread and due to the strong implication that you are answering my post because you are speaking about the ancient Hebrew text (which no modern Jew actually uses in his daily language but nevertheless understands)
The YLT bible translators don't know ancient Hebrew, so why is their translation more credible than people who speak Hebrew today?
Young and many other New Testament Bible translators probably understood the ancient Hebrew that the Bible was written in as well as you, or very nearly as well as you. I realize that you probably will claim the opposite (because you desperately need to be correct in this), but like I said in an earlier post, it depends upon an individual's beliefs.
You believe what you do, but the New Testament teaches me and all Christians that the Law was a shadow of Christ, a pattern of the better things to come, and was replaced by obedience to God through faith in Christ, because the shadow could not be obeyed to the perfect standard needed to produce the spiritual Life in an individual which was lost through Adam's sin.
You know perfectly well because of your many years of interaction with Christians that the New Covenant which God gave, is based on Christ's blood shed for the forgiveness of sin, and the product of faith in Christ (for those who abide in Christ), is the Holy Spirit of Christ producing the fruit of the Spirit in those who believe in and abide in Him, which fulfills the Law of God:
"Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." John 15:4-5
"Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Rom 13:8-10
This is what Yahweh means when He tells you (Fenris) through His prophet Jeremiah that HE will write His Law on your heart and put it in your mind (Jer 31:33). It's because you and me and all mankind will NEVER be able to produce the fruit of the Spirit of God, of which torah is the shadow, through the attempts of our flesh - and yet He commands you and me and all mankind to be holy, because He is Holy.
It's not the shadow of His perfect Law (the shadow being torah) which He will write on your heart and put in your mind, because the flesh cannot obey torah to the required standard. He wants you to rely on HIM.
Nevertheless, because each person who has been born from above of the Spirit of Yahweh has different rates of growth in Christ, this side of death and the resurrection, as Paul states, "the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. And these are contrary to one another; lest whatever you may will, these things you do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law." Gal 5:17-18
I'm not going to answer you again regarding the question about the Hebrew word olam (which is found all over the place in torah, in almost every statute and ordinance), because I have already told you in my previous very long post (and you already knew before I told you) why Christians do not believe the Law is "it" but the Law is the shadow of the better things, i.e Christ and His Holy Spirit in you.
Fenris, try to understand that the reason why Christians begin to believe and continue to believe this, is because the same Holy Spirit of God bears witness to our spirits/souls that this is true.
The Holy Spirit of God Himself bears witness to Christ, deep within us, within each one of us who believes in Christ, individually. This fact is itself written in the New Testament, and not only is this the experience of millions of individuals all round the world who are alive today, but it has also been the experience of millions of men and women in each generation for the last 2,000 years since Christ died and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and sent the Holy Spirit in His stead.
It is also the experience of thousands of Jews who are alive today, (and praise God for each and every one of them), and I pray to the Father right now in the name of Jesus that this will become your experience too.
But I will not respond to you anymore in any board where you answer my posts with either a statement or a question meant to negate either Christianity or the Lord who shed His blood and died in order to establish the New Covenant.
Don't do to yourself what the people of the world did when Noah warned them about the coming flood and invited them to get into the ark for their salvation. Their mocking and their prideful rebellion against Noah and his message and his God, got them nowhere.
-
Young and many other New Testament Bible translators probably understood the ancient Hebrew that the Bible was written in as well as you, or very nearly as well as you.
And yet you claim I don't understand it.
I'm not going to answer you again regarding the question about the Hebrew word olam (which is found all over the place in torah, in almost every statute and ordinance), because I have already told you in my previous very long post (and you already knew before I told you) why Christians do not believe the Law is "it" but the Law is the shadow of the better things
OK, what about the phrases "throughout your generations" and "in any place that you dwell"? Those also seem to mean "forever" but use different words. Or is YLT going to translate those funky too?
But I will not respond to you anymore in any board where you answer my posts with either a statement or a question meant to negate either Christianity or the Lord who shed His blood and died in order to establish the New Covenant.
The questions that I am asking you are about Judaism, not Christianity. I find it peculiar that you feel the practice of Judaism somehow negates Christianity.
Don't do to yourself what the people of the world did when Noah warned them about the coming flood and invited them to get into the ark for their salvation. Their mocking and their prideful rebellion against Noah and his message and his God, got them nowhere.
So now you're Noah.
-
So now you're Noah.
I thought Russell Crowe the Wooden was Noah...
:o
-
I thought Russell Crowe the Wooden was Noah...
Yeah, that was clearly not his best effort...
-
Their mocking and their prideful rebellion against Noah and his message and his God, got them nowhere.
"Here's what I think this says."
"Okay, but what about this?"
"Rebellion! Mockery! You'll be sorry!"
Threatening people into believing your interpretation of the Bible when they rightly test it hardly makes it look like it can stand on its own.
-
There's definitely a theme where people being disagreed with comparing themselves to long suffering prophets. Almost as if the mere fact that someone disagrees with them makes them correct.
So if no one disagrees with them, there's consensus, and they're right; and if someone disagrees with them, they're like the prophets of old, and they're right.
Nice work if you can find it.
-
I wonder what God thinks about people and their red herrings?
All I know is that while the door of the ark is still open, "the Spirit and the Bride say, Come; and he who is hearing--let him say, Come; and he who is thirsting--let him come; and he who is willing--let him take the water of life freely." Rev 22:17
Yes, it's true that Christians should be aware that they will often be falsely accused of all sorts of things when they do as Jesus commanded. For example, they may be falsely accused of thinking themselves to be prophets (LOL, that one really made me laugh), and yes, it's true that very often they will be reviled, just as they reviled Jesus and the prophets and apostles.
At times they will even be slandered and reviled by other Christians.
But it's good that like Noah and his sons no doubt did, we warn everyone and hope that others will believe and hear, because when the time comes, God will shut the door Himself:
"And they that entered, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in." Gen 7:16
"Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the sexually immoral, and the murderers, and the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood!" Rev 22:15
"And he saith to me, `Thou mayest not seal the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is nigh; he who is unrighteous--let him be unrighteous still, and he who is filthy--let him be filthy still, and he who is righteous--let him be declared righteous still, and he who is sanctified--let him be sanctified still:
And lo, I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to render to each as his work shall be; I am the Alpha and the Omega--the Beginning and End--the First and the Last." Rev 22:1-13
We may not seal the words of the prophecy, nor the warnings of Christ, His apostles and prophets, but to all Christians He also says,
"And whoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say to you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Mat 10:14-15
But,
"Repay no one evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it is possible, as far as is in you, seeking peace with all men. not avenging yourselves, beloved, but giving place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him. If he thirsts, give him drink. For in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Mat 12:17-21
Rom 3:19-28
19 Now we know that what things whatsoever the law says, it says to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
-
I think the Law is permanent. The covenant between God and Israel at Mount Sinai is permanent. The Christian teaching is that when we believe in Jesus, we die to the law (we die, not the law dies). That is the way out, when we die with Jesus.
Galatians 2:19 For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me.
Another important aspect of the New Covenant besides having the law written in the heart, is that iniquity is forgiven (Jeremiah 31:33-34). Christians believe this complete forgiveness of sins is only possible through the blood of Jesus Christ, who takes away our sin forever. In the Torah, the Day of Atonement only took away sins at that moment and needed to be repeated year after year. Christians believe the Day of Atonement points to Jesus' ultimate sacrifice.
I partially agree with what you said except that It's not the pattern (the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes) that's permanent (hence the covenant made at Sinai was not permanent), but it's the spirit of the Law which is permanent, of which the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes are the pattern:
Matt 22
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, You shall love your neighbour as yourself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
This was fulfilled perfectly and completely by and in Christ when He took the sins of man upon Himself, shed His blood and died:
John 15
13 Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Romans 13
8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 For: "Do not commit adultery; do not murder; do not steal; do not bear false witness; do not lust;" and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love works no ill to its neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
We cannot do this, because of the sinfulness and weakness of our flesh, but Jesus can:
John 15
5 I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Phil 2
13 For it is God who works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.
Jer 31
33 but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
It's not the pattern of the law (the 613 statutes, ordinances and commandments) that God writes in our hearts and puts in our minds, but the spirit of the law, whose shadow is those 613 statutes, ordinances and commandments. The 10 commandments all have to do with love for God and for neighbor. Honoring our parents is honoring God and loving our kinsmen all at the same time.
The sabbath is prophetic of Christ, because it's the 613 laws which made up the pattern He was speaking about when He said,
Matt 11
28 Come to Me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take My yoke on you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you shall find rest to your souls.
30 For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light.
Many people hold onto the sabbath-law because they mistakenly believe that the 10 commandments are not part of the pattern or shadow, yet the 10 commandments are all to do with love for God and for neighbor, which have already been fulfilled by and in Christ (which is why He is our sabbath).
The only way the law can be fulfilled in us is by Christ in us - the fruit of the Spirit - and the only way He can abide in us is if we abide in Him. So the Law is not fulfilled BY us (because we cannot do it because of our flesh), but it's fulfilled by Christ IN us (God Himself writing his law on our hearts).
So the (pattern of) the Law was indeed abolished in the flesh of Christ when He fulfilled it, and those who have died with Christ are indeed dead to the (pattern of) the Law, but alive to the spirit of the Law being fulfilled by Christ in us.
The covenant God made with Israel was based on obedience to the pattern. Therefore it is not permanent:
Jer 31
32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;
31 Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah,
32 not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;
-
The questions that I am asking you are about Judaism, not Christianity.
But this is a Christian thread started by a Christian on a Christian board, so I am talking to you about Christianity, not Judaism, and because I'm not interested in interpreting the Old Testament or the New Testament from a Judaic perspective, your arguments are like the ether to me (meaning the pre-creation void), especially because I know that due to the fact that you are talking about and promoting Judaism and the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures, and doing so in a Christian thread on a Christian board, you will just deny the fact that "throughout your generations" applied only as long as the Covenant of Law given at Sinai remained in place. But because you deny Christ, you deny the New Covenant, and you will insist that God's only covenant with Israel is and remains the covenant made with Israel at Sinai.
You also deny the fact that there has also been a change in the Law, and you deny everything God has done through Christ, so your arguments are like a void to me.
Actually, your arguments mean absolutely nothing to God either because they come from a basis of denying Christ.
-
I partially agree with what you said except that It's not the pattern (the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes) that's permanent (hence the covenant made at Sinai was not permanent), but it's the spirit of the Law which is permanent
It certainly sounds like it's the actual rules that are important.
Lev 18 You are to practice My judgments and keep My statutes by walking in them. I am the LORD your God. Keep My statutes and My judgments, for the man who does these things will live by them. I am the LORD.
Lev 19 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
Lev 20 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them
Lev 26 If you follow My statutes and carefully keep My commandments, I will give you rains in their season, and the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.…
Deut 4 See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”
Deut 7 So keep the commandments and statutes and ordinances that I am giving you to follow this day. If you listen to these ordinances and keep them carefully, then the LORD your God will keep His covenant and the loving devotion that He swore to your fathers. He will love you and bless you and multiply you...
and
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
(as a side note- we are far less than 1,000 generations from the patriarchs, so why does this condition not apply even to today's Jews?)
Deut 11 So if you carefully obey the commandments I am giving you today, to love the LORD your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul...
Deut 28 Now if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God and are careful to follow all His commandments I am giving you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth...
Deut 29 So keep and follow the words of this covenant,
Deut 32 Take to heart all these words I testify among you today, so that you may command your children to carefully follow all the words of this law.
Psalm 19 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul
Psalm 105 He remembers his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations
Psalm 111 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments:
Ecclesiastes 12 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
-
I partially agree with what you said except that It's not the pattern (the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes) that's permanent (hence the covenant made at Sinai was not permanent), but it's the spirit of the Law which is permanent
It certainly sounds like it's the actual rules that are important.
So why didn't they obey them then?
-
So why didn't they obey them then?
Why, do you think it's because they knew the actual rules weren't important? Because I know this is going to come as a shocker, but they were exiled for not following the actual rules.
-
So why didn't they obey them then?
Why, do you think it's because they knew the actual rules weren't important? Because I know this is going to come as a shocker, but they were exiled for not following the actual rules.
That doesn't tell me why they did not obey them, Fenris. Side-stepping the question doesn't answer it. I know why they didn't obey. But I'm asking you, because you're the expert on the Law.
-
That doesn't tell me why they did not obey them, Fenris. Side-stepping the question doesn't answer it. I know why they didn't obey. But I'm asking you, because you're the expert on the Law.
Because they fell short. But it isn't impossible to uphold the law.
-
That doesn't tell me why they did not obey them, Fenris. Side-stepping the question doesn't answer it. I know why they didn't obey. But I'm asking you, because you're the expert on the Law.
Because they fell short. But it isn't impossible to uphold the law.
Is that why God promised them a new covenant?
Before you answer that, I'm sorry. Lately you've implied that I consider myself a prophet (i.e a false prophet) among other things, and then you implied that I'm antisemtic. It hit a very raw nerve - but not because of guilt, but because the opposite is true, in both cases. But I reacted not only wrongly, but very badly. And I'm sorry.
-
Is that why God promised them a new covenant?
But what is the new covenant.
The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
This 'new covenant' is with Judah and Israel, not the whole world. And what is it?
This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts."
It's the same law. We will just do it by our nature.
Before you answer that, I'm sorry. Lately you've implied that I consider myself a prophet (i.e a false prophet) among other things, and then you implied that I'm antisemtic. It hit a very raw nerve - but not because of guilt, but because the opposite is true, in both cases. But I reacted not only wrongly, but very badly. And I'm sorry.
I too have used harsher words than I should have, and I apologize for that as well.
Let the debate continue!
-
I partially agree with what you said except that It's not the pattern (the 613 commandments, ordinances and statutes) that's permanent (hence the covenant made at Sinai was not permanent), but it's the spirit of the Law which is permanent
It certainly sounds like it's the actual rules that are important.
Lev 18 You are to practice My judgments and keep My statutes by walking in them. I am the LORD your God. Keep My statutes and My judgments, for the man who does these things will live by them. I am the LORD.
Lev 19 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
Lev 20 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them
Lev 26 If you follow My statutes and carefully keep My commandments, I will give you rains in their season, and the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.…
Deut 4 See, I have taught you statutes and ordinances just as the LORD my God has commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land that you are about to enter and possess. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, who will hear of all these statutes and say, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.”
Deut 7 So keep the commandments and statutes and ordinances that I am giving you to follow this day. If you listen to these ordinances and keep them carefully, then the LORD your God will keep His covenant and the loving devotion that He swore to your fathers. He will love you and bless you and multiply you...
and
Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
(as a side note- we are far less than 1,000 generations from the patriarchs, so why does this condition not apply even to today's Jews?)
Deut 11 So if you carefully obey the commandments I am giving you today, to love the LORD your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul...
Deut 28 Now if you faithfully obey the voice of the LORD your God and are careful to follow all His commandments I am giving you today, the LORD your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth...
Deut 29 So keep and follow the words of this covenant,
Deut 32 Take to heart all these words I testify among you today, so that you may command your children to carefully follow all the words of this law.
Psalm 19 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul
Psalm 105 He remembers his covenant forever, the promise he made, for a thousand generations
Psalm 111 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments:
Ecclesiastes 12 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
I was going to answer this, but I'm just going to leave it, because it's not going to bear fruit, because you know the New Testament scriptures that talk about the Law, and you already have a good idea of what I will answer before I answer it, and you will simply argue it from the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures which cannot be healed as long as the truth regarding both the New Testament scriptures and Christ Himself are rejected out of hand.
As long as you reject both Christ and the New Testament scriptures and their validity, no further discussion of the Law will produce the fruit of opening your eyes to see the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures for what it is. Only God can do that. I'm not going to continue with this discussion. And that does not mean I do not have respect for you, nor that I have any contempt for your views.
-
Is that why God promised them a new covenant?
But what is the new covenant.
The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
This 'new covenant' is with Judah and Israel, not the whole world. And what is it?
This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts."
It's the same law. We will just do it by our nature.
Before you answer that, I'm sorry. Lately you've implied that I consider myself a prophet (i.e a false prophet) among other things, and then you implied that I'm antisemtic. It hit a very raw nerve - but not because of guilt, but because the opposite is true, in both cases. But I reacted not only wrongly, but very badly. And I'm sorry.
I too have used harsher words than I should have, and I apologize for that as well.
Let the debate continue!
You never answered the question I asked, you side-stepped it again. But please see my previous post. There's no point in doing this anymore. It will not bear fruit. For some it's an exciting sort of intellectual gaming challenge, but not for me. The only fruit from discussions I'm interested in when I discuss these issues with you is the only fruit Christ is interested in.
-
I too have used harsher words than I should have, and I apologize for that as well.
Let the debate continue!
[/quote]
Shalom :)
-
you will simply argue it from the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures
What misrepresentation? The verses say exactly what they say. At least admit that without the NT there's nothing wrong with the Jewish understanding of the bible.
As long as you reject both Christ and the New Testament scriptures and their validity
Yes, and that's the whole point. My views are completely consistent with what my bible says. You can accept that without rejecting your own faith. I have no problem accepting the Christian viewpoint as being consistent with your own bible.
I'm not going to continue with this discussion. And that does not mean I do not have respect for you, nor that I have any contempt for your views.
Peace.
-
you will simply argue it from the Judaic misinterpretation of the scriptures
What misrepresentation? The verses say exactly what they say. At least admit that without the NT there's nothing wrong with the Jewish understanding of the bible.
I myself would refer to Rabbinic interpretations as "wrong" not because the Law wasn't correctly being applied, before Jesus, in its own time, but only because it rejects the fulfillment of the Law Jesus exhibited in his history. I fully admit that during the time before Jesus the Law was not explicit, nor clear, about how Israel's Hope would be fulfilled. It was a sorry picture of national failure, again and again, over time.
That doesn't mean there weren't times of success, but the picture always led invariably to a failure of Israel's Hope. So the question is: Is Rabbinic Judaism correct in saying Jesus did not fulfill Israel's Hope?
Well yes, but this is a half-truth, which is no better than a lie. Jesus did fail to bring about the fulfillment of Israel's hope. But he did provide the basis for eternal atonement, which is precisely what the Law had been doing on a temporary basis.
The Law had been providing a band aid for an incurable wound called "sin." And it had been holding up a promise by a means that fell short of eternal atonement.
What Jesus did on the cross and in his ministry did consist of an eternal atonement, and was not in any way opposed to the Law of Moses. On the contrary, it fulfilled that Law and became the exclusive means by which Israel's national Hope can ultimately come to pass in the future.
As a Jew you may and do accept Rabbinic Judaism and its conclusion that Jesus was not the Messiah. But you cannot honestly say that Jesus did not fulfill the Law, since during his ministry he pressed for an exhaustive obedience to the Law, curtailed only when he was rejected as the exclusive means of eternal atonement.
I believe it to be true that the Law taught only a temporary means of atonement, even though it was intended to be continuous in operation. It was conditional, and based on Israel's obedience, without which a covenant is broken. The promise of restoration is not based on the operation of the agreement itself, but instead is outside of the domain of the agreement.
Even if God made an agreement to restore a broken Law, it was not the Law itself that was made a permanent feature of the promise, but only the promise that was given to be "everlasting." The Law was conditional, but the promise was everlasting. The Law cannot be conditional and also everlasting. Once it is broken, it is no longer everlasting.
The promise is kept by a non-conditional means of atonement, separated from the defiling influences of flawed priests. That's why only Jesus' atonement could be attached to the promise on an eternal basis. His priesthood was not flawed. As such, it was not a conditional agreement between God and a flawed priesthood.
-
I myself would refer to Rabbinic interpretations as "wrong" not because the Law wasn't correctly being applied, before Jesus, in its own time, but only because it rejects the fulfillment of the Law Jesus exhibited in his history.
Which is only true if one accepts the NT as holy wit.
I fully admit that during the time before Jesus the Law was not explicit, nor clear, about how Israel's Hope would be fulfilled.
Sure it was. Deuteronomy 30. C'mon man.
It was a sorry picture of national failure, again and again, over time.
Which and when Israel returns to God. How man times to I have to quote the same chapter?
When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, if you obey the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this Book of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
That doesn't mean there weren't times of success, but the picture always led invariably to a failure of Israel's Hope. So the question is: Is Rabbinic Judaism correct in saying Jesus did not fulfill Israel's Hope?
Israel's first hope was to be gathered back to the land of Israel. Did Jesus fulfill that?
Well yes, but this is a half-truth, which is no better than a lie. Jesus did fail to bring about the fulfillment of Israel's hope. But he did provide the basis for eternal atonement, which is precisely what the Law had been doing on a temporary basis.
The law isn't about "atonement". It's about carrying out God's will on this earth. God didn't give us a lot of laws so that we could accrue many sins. He gave us a lot of laws so that we could accrue many merits. You're looking at the whole thing exactly backwards.
The Law had been providing a band aid for an incurable wound called "sin."
Sin isn't an "incurable wound ". It's a choice. What did God say to Cain?
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
What Jesus did on the cross and in his ministry did consist of an eternal atonement
If one accept the NT as holy writ.
and was not in any way opposed to the Law of Moses.
It's not necessary in my bible. It is not. And it's not "the law of Moses". It's the law of God.
As a Jew you may and do accept Rabbinic Judaism and its conclusion that Jesus was not the Messiah.
It's not "rabbinic Judaism" that leads to that conclusion. It's just Judaism. Without the NT Jesus is unnecessary.
But you cannot honestly say that Jesus did not fulfill the Law
As I've already said, the law isn't something that is "fulfilled". It's something that you do. Every day. And Jesus couldn't have "fulfilled" the law. No one can "fulfill" the law.
I believe it to be true that the Law taught only a temporary means of atonement,
And you're free to believe that. But that doesn't make it so. Again, especially without the NT.
It was conditional, and based on Israel's obedience, without which a covenant is broken.
You keep saying this, but there is no biblical support for this idea. Certainly not in my bible.
The Law cannot be conditional and also everlasting.
Finally, some clarity. Yes. The law can't be conditional and also everlasting. because it's not conditional. It's everlasting.
The promise is kept by a non-conditional means of atonement, separated from the defiling influences of flawed priests.
I don't need priests for atonement. The bible lists many other ways to atone.
Proverbs 16:6 By mercy and truth iniquity is purged
Hosea 14 Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to Him, `Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, for we will render as bullocks the offerings of our lips'
Isaiah 40: Comfort, comfort my people,
says your God.
Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
double for all her sins.
Jeremiah 36 every man will turn from his evil way, then I will forgive their iniquity and their sin.
Isaiah 55 Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
2 Chronicles 7 And if My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Micah 6 With what shall I come before the Lord
and bow down before the exalted God?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?
Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly with your God.
Daniel 4 Therefore, O king, may my advice be pleasing to you: Redeem your sins by doing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the poor
-
I myself would refer to Rabbinic interpretations as "wrong" not because the Law wasn't correctly being applied, before Jesus, in its own time, but only because it rejects the fulfillment of the Law Jesus exhibited in his history.
Which is only true if one accepts the NT as holy wit.
Obviously. And if you stand by Judaism, you're not going to agree with Christian propositions, out of loyalty to a culture, rather than loyalty to the truth.
I fully admit that during the time before Jesus the Law was not explicit, nor clear, about how Israel's Hope would be fulfilled.
Sure it was. Deuteronomy 30. C'mon man.
Sounding like Biden doesn't help your case! ;)
It was a sorry picture of national failure, again and again, over time.
Which and when Israel returns to God. How man times to I have to quote the same chapter?
Just once--I've been reading this passage seriously since the early 70s. Again, it is a sorry picture of national failure, again, and again, over time. I don't know how quoting it helps your case? A promise of restoration implies an eternal promise was made. But it also implies a broken covenant took place. Restoration of a covenant does *not* imply that the covenant continued--only the promise continued. The covenant being restored is not the covenant being continued.
Well yes, but this is a half-truth, which is no better than a lie. Jesus did fail to bring about the fulfillment of Israel's hope. But he did provide the basis for eternal atonement, which is precisely what the Law had been doing on a temporary basis.
The law isn't about "atonement". It's about carrying out God's will on this earth. God didn't give us a lot of laws so that we could accrue many sins. He gave us a lot of laws so that we could accrue many merits. You're looking at the whole thing exactly backwards.
No, not looking at the Law through Jewish eyes is not seeing the Law backwards. It is disagreeing with a Jewish consensus about the Law that it is not about atonement. In fact, it is full of atonement.
For a long while, in biblical times, the Hebrew people felt it was okay to observe both the Law and pagan religion. Am I backwards not to accept the "Jewish consensus" at that time?
The Law had been providing a band aid for an incurable wound called "sin."
Sin isn't an "incurable wound ". It's a choice. What did God say to Cain?
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
I'm not arguing against the idea Cain couldn't do good works. So that has nothing to do with it. Sin is "incurable" because we all have the inward tendency towards sin, a predisposition in our nature to make choices independent of God's Spirit. Even the most righteous among us have this problem--it is indeed "incurable." That's why God consigned all of us to death. No sinner was allowed access to the Tree of Life, though through the process of atonement people could maintain fellowship with God in this life.
What Jesus did on the cross and in his ministry did consist of an eternal atonement
If one accept the NT as holy writ.
It's a fact that the history describes it as such by Jews who founded Christianity.
and was not in any way opposed to the Law of Moses.
It's not necessary in my bible. It is not. And it's not "the law of Moses". It's the law of God.
It's both Moses' Law and God's Law--what a meaningless distinction to make! ;) God gave the Law through Moses to Israel. The hopeless condition of Israel is played up repeatedly in the Jewish Bible, calling upon a Messianic "fix." There did need to be a better redemption than that which had been failing by the Law. That called for a better priesthood and a better Law.
As a Jew you may and do accept Rabbinic Judaism and its conclusion that Jesus was not the Messiah.
It's not "rabbinic Judaism" that leads to that conclusion. It's just Judaism. Without the NT Jesus is unnecessary.
That's not true. Christianity was founded by Jews in Judaism. They believed that Christianity was a necessary transition propounded by Judaism itself. Obviously, the majority who remained in original Judaism rejected this transition. The fact it was a majority of Jews that rejected Christianity proves nothing, since Hebrew majorities in the Bible made mistakes again and again, and for very long periods of time.
But you cannot honestly say that Jesus did not fulfill the Law
As I've already said, the law isn't something that is "fulfilled". It's something that you do. Every day. And Jesus couldn't have "fulfilled" the law. No one can "fulfill" the law.
You say that, but the Law expressed the need for closure, and thus for prophetic fulfillment--a resolution to the problem of sin in Israel. And so, prophecy of the final state of Israel is replete in how the Prophets themselves characterized the Law.
I believe it to be true that the Law taught only a temporary means of atonement,
And you're free to believe that. But that doesn't make it so. Again, especially without the NT.
The captivities were living proof that all solutions available under the Law could not prevent Israel's failures. As such, following the Law was only a temporary remedy for human weakness--it invariably failed over time, just as Christian nations invariably fail over time.
It was conditional, and based on Israel's obedience, without which a covenant is broken.
You keep saying this, but there is no biblical support for this idea. Certainly not in my bible.
It's in your Bible, but you choose to stick with your own words. The proposition that obedience leads to blessings and disobedience leads to curses is indeed a "conditional covenant."
The Law cannot be conditional and also everlasting.
Finally, some clarity. Yes. The law can't be conditional and also everlasting. because it's not conditional. It's everlasting.
As I said before, only the promise of Jewish continuance is everlasting. It could not be accomplished by a conditional Law that failed repeatedly. It had to be accomplished by what the NT Bible calls "mercy."
Eze 36.22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.
The promise is kept by a non-conditional means of atonement, separated from the defiling influences of flawed priests.
I don't need priests for atonement. The bible lists many other ways to atone.
Listing other means of atonement does not disprove the fact that among the 613 requirements exercising the priestly participation in atonement for Israel remains one of them. It is a fact that priestly rituals of atonement for Israel were required in the Law.
Failure of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods in the matter of atonement indicated that the Law required an upgrade. While it's true that other means of atonement were available, the fact that the priesthood itself failed alone indicated the Law had failed in the matter of atonement.
Are you going to say that there is success under the Law if one breaks the commandment not to murder but succeeds in keeping the commandment to not commit adultery? No, the Law fails with any major transgression in the Law. Locating another means of atonement under the Law does not prove the Law is successful if the priesthood, also required under the Law, fails.
Just as there was, in ancient times, a consensus of Hebrews that embraced both Judaism and paganism, today's Judaism embraces a liberal view of the Law that denies the problem of human sin and the need for atonement from God. It relies on a system that was designed by God only to be temporary until a "fix" could be made--one that "fulfills" the Law, as promised by the Prophets.
The Jews themselves in Judaism therefore produced Christianity. It was not outside of Judaism, but only a remnant within Judaism. And even the idea of a "remnant" of faithful is biblical Judaism.
-
Obviously. And if you stand by Judaism, you're not going to agree with Christian propositions, out of loyalty to a culture, rather than loyalty to the truth.
Why do you get to decide what is "truth"? Maybe I'm the one who knows the "truth".
Sounding like Biden doesn't help your case!
A great answer to a biblical quote that disagrees with you.
Just once--I've been reading this passage seriously since the early 70s. Again, it is a sorry picture of national failure, again, and again, over time.
Or, it's a story of perseverance. A people fails, but tries. Again and again. Is the glass half empty or half full?
I don't know how quoting it helps your case? A promise of restoration implies an eternal promise was made.
Yes. Because God's promises are eternal.
But it also implies a broken covenant took place. Restoration of a covenant does *not* imply that the covenant continued--only the promise continued. The covenant being restored is not the covenant being continued.
No place does the bible say this. Quite the opposite. Lev 26:44. You're inventing "facts" to support your argument, while ignoring what God actually said.
No, not looking at the Law through Jewish eyes is not seeing the Law backwards.
It's not about "Jewish eyes". It's about what the bible actually says. Which you feel free to disregard because *reasons*.
It is disagreeing with a Jewish consensus about the Law that it is not about atonement. In fact, it is full of atonement.
No, atonement and the law are two separate things. The law is what God expects that we do. Atonement only comes into play when we fall short.
For a long while, in biblical times, the Hebrew people felt it was okay to observe both the Law and pagan religion. Am I backwards not to accept the "Jewish consensus" at that time?
Just because Jews were sometimes wrong doesn't mean that Jews are always wrong. Heck, there was a time when Christianity was Inquisitions and Crusades and burning heretics at the stake. That doesn't mean that all Christians are like that, then or now. Yet you somehow think that because Jews were wrong sometimes, it means they're always wrong.
I'm not arguing against the idea Cain couldn't do good works. So that has nothing to do with it. Sin is "incurable" because we all have the inward tendency towards sin, a predisposition in our nature to make choices independent of God's Spirit. Even the most righteous among us have this problem--it is indeed "incurable."
No, that's called "being a human being". You try, fall short, and try harder next time. God doesn't expect perfection. He just expects us to try. And an important part of that is having an evil urge to overcome. No evil urge, no free will, and human existence has no meaning.
It's all about perspective, see?
It's a fact that the history describes it as such by Jews who founded Christianity.
Yes, Jews are a busy and productive people in all fields of human endeavor. Did you know that about 25% of all Nobel prizes awarded have gone to Jews, who make up just 0.2% of the world's population? So naturally one would expect that Jews would also be busy in the field of religion. That doesn't make it true or correct. See socialism for one such example.
It's both Moses' Law and God's Law--what a meaningless distinction to make!
It's God's law.
God gave the Law through Moses to Israel. The hopeless condition of Israel is played up repeatedly in the Jewish Bible, calling upon a Messianic "fix."
There's no such fix. God asks us again and again to uphold the law. Not give it up and rely on a "messianic fix".
There did need to be a better redemption than that which had been failing by the Law. That called for a better priesthood and a better Law.
Which isn't in my bible anywhere.
That's not true. Christianity was founded by Jews in Judaism. They believed that Christianity was a necessary transition propounded by Judaism itself.
We both argee that sometimes Jews can be wrong. So perhaps those Jews were wrong. Eh?
Obviously, the majority who remained in original Judaism rejected this transition. The fact it was a majority of Jews that rejected Christianity proves nothing, since Hebrew majorities in the Bible made mistakes again and again, and for very long periods of time.
And the fact that a minority of Jews embraced something also proves nothing, as a minority of Jews have also been wrong. For example, Hellenists, Sadducees, Essenes, Sabbateans, the list goes on and on. Yet somehow in your example, those Jews should be followed by other Jews. Because, again, *reasons*.
You say that, but the Law expressed the need for closure,
Chapter and verse, please.
and thus for prophetic fulfillment--a resolution to the problem of sin in Israel. And so, prophecy of the final state of Israel is replete in how the Prophets themselves characterized the Law.
By following it. Not abandoning it.
The captivities were living proof that all solutions available under the Law could not prevent Israel's failures.
No. And God expects us to pick ourselves up after fail and try again. Deuteronomy 30, and many many other places.
It's in your Bible, but you choose to stick with your own words.
Again, chapter and verse please. Saying it's "implied" or "obvious" is simply not true, because the plain text says the exact opposite.
The proposition that obedience leads to blessings and disobedience leads to curses is indeed a "conditional covenant."
No. No no no no. That disobedience leads to curses is a condition of the covenant, not an abrogation. After all the curses in Lev 26, God specifically says that the covenant will not be ended.
As I said before, only the promise of Jewish continuance is everlasting. It could not be accomplished by a conditional Law that failed repeatedly. It had to be accomplished by what the NT Bible calls "mercy."
Great. So you admit that the NT is necessary for Christianity. Finally.
Eze 36.22 “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone.
LOL you talk about the NT but then quote my bible. Yes, God promises to redeem us whether we deserve it or not. Which throws your whole argument away. Sin doesn't sperate us from God.
Listing other means of atonement does not disprove the fact that among the 613 requirements exercising the priestly participation in atonement for Israel remains one of them. It is a fact that priestly rituals of atonement for Israel were required in the Law.
Which also didn't exist between 586BC and 516BC. So sacrifice is only part of the law when it's possible. Hence I'm not sure what your point is.
Failure of the Aaronic and Levitical priesthoods in the matter of atonement indicated that the Law required an upgrade.
Did you not read the verses I posted?
Where does the bible say an "upgrade" is necessary?
While it's true that other means of atonement were available, the fact that the priesthood itself failed alone indicated the Law had failed in the matter of atonement.
The priesthood did not "fail". In fact it was a successful method of atonement for the ~500 years the first temple stood and ~500 years the second temple stood. And in the time between the temples, obviously prayer worked, because God did redeem the Jewish exiles.
King Solomon makes a plea in 2 Chronicles 6: “When they sin against you—for there is no one who does not sin—and you become angry with them and give them over to the enemy, who takes them captive to a land far away or near; and if they have a change of heart in the land where they are held captive, and repent and plead with you in the land of their captivity and say, ‘We have sinned, we have done wrong and acted wickedly’; and if they turn back to you with all their heart and soul in the land of their captivity where they were taken, and pray toward the land you gave their ancestors, toward the city you have chosen and toward the temple I have built for your Name; then from heaven, your dwelling place, hear their prayer and their pleas, and uphold their cause. And forgive your people, who have sinned against you."
And God responds in 2 Chronicles 7 "When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command locusts to devour the land or send a plague among my people, if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. "
God seems perfectly capable of forgiving His people. All they need to do is pray and ask for it.
Are you going to say that there is success under the Law if one breaks the commandment not to murder but succeeds in keeping the commandment to not commit adultery?
I'm going to say that a world with even a single good deed in it is infinitely better than a world without that good deed. And it's sad that you can't or won't see this.
Just as there was, in ancient times, a consensus of Hebrews that embraced both Judaism and paganism, today's Judaism embraces a liberal view of the Law
Upholding the law is a "liberal view"? LOL. And what is casting the law aside? "Conservative"?
that denies the problem of human sin and the need for atonement from God. It relies on a system that was designed by God only to be temporary until a "fix" could be made--one that "fulfills" the Law, as promised by the Prophets.
It relies on the fact that we can repent and ask God for forgiveness. Which we do. Daily.
The Jews themselves in Judaism therefore produced Christianity. It was not outside of Judaism, but only a remnant within Judaism. And even the idea of a "remnant" of faithful is biblical Judaism.
So the Jews who cast aside Judaism are the "real Jews", while the Jews who uphold Judaism are "not faithful". Like so much else, you completely invert everything here. Cheers.
-
As I said before, only the promise of Jewish continuance is everlasting.
It's convenient how "everlasting" means "everlasting" when you're okay with it meaning it, but when the Law repeatedly calls itself "eternal," "everlasting," and "permanent" those words suddenly mean the exact opposite: temporary and destined to be replaced.
Language means nothing when it means whatever you need it to for your theology, regardless of context.
-
As I said before, only the promise of Jewish continuance is everlasting.
It's convenient how "everlasting" means "everlasting" when you're okay with it meaning it, but when the Law repeatedly calls itself "eternal," "everlasting," and "permanent" those words suddenly mean the exact opposite: temporary and destined to be replaced.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
-Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass
-
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
It's absolutely no different from that fundamentally dishonest self-serving verbal nihilism.
-
As I said before, only the promise of Jewish continuance is everlasting.
It's convenient how "everlasting" means "everlasting" when you're okay with it meaning it, but when the Law repeatedly calls itself "eternal," "everlasting," and "permanent" those words suddenly mean the exact opposite: temporary and destined to be replaced.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
-Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass
Yes, unfortunately words do mean different things to different people, but I don't wish to play psychologist. If there is a scientific rule at all in language, it requires: "words mean what they mean in context."
"Everlasting" in the context of a conditional contract doesn't mean anything more than a "continuing" contract." But if there is no condition placed upon the contract, and if there is an "everlasting" guarantee, then indeed the promise is "everlasting."
If you need a looking glass to understand this, you read too much! ;)
-
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
It's absolutely no different from that fundamentally dishonest self-serving verbal nihilism.
An angry man can't see because he sees everything through the lens of his rage. He may not realize that his anger is misplaced.
I didn't lie to you, and I've never been dishonest with you. But you continue to mount an emotional defense that lacks conscience.
A law "for all your generations" is a *continuing* contract, up until the point where the contract disqualifies itself from continuing as such. That is, it is not stating that it will remain a contract forever, but only up until the point where one of the parties to the contract fails that contract. Then, it ceases to be a "continuing contract."
If you deny that the Law was a conditional contract, then it is you who are being dishonest. You are denying the very words of Scripture which claim God divorced Israel for failure to keep the covenant of Law. And you're failing to admit that national exile was, in fact, an expression of a completely-failed contract.
-
There is no way that I desire to become a Jew.
But I am an Israelite by faith and also probably by descent.
From the many signs and the indications from the Bible, we are now very close to the time when the Lord will again reset our civilization, as He did in the days of Noah.
We have been warned and eventually only the righteous believers in God will survive it all.
I agree,
There seems to be too much trying to get the flesh [including their own] into the Kingdom of God.
It comes out in their doctrine.
Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Col
-
This might help.
The 7 seals of the book of Rev. contain all events necessary to the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.
However Christ returns as shown in the 6th seal and the vials of wrath are begun to be poured in the 7th seal out as stated in Rev.ch 10 and the wrath only takes 30 days to occur as shown in Dan ch 12.
The trumpets occur leading up to Christs return in the 6th seal
Check it out.
Col.
-
In relation to the Kingdom of GOD, this will not happen through "a magic realization or operation", it will be a conquer through conquerors under the command of the seventh angel. Revelation 11:v.14 to 18: Will be Michael?
14 The second *woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
18 And the nations were (will be) angry(furious), and thy wrath -GOD's wrath- is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be Judged, and that GOD should give reward unto His servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear His name, small and great; and should destroy them which destroy the earth. (This prophecy will fulfill LITERALLY from now on, by the way, it is already running).
The second *woe - Revelation 11:v.2-3 and 6
Jerusalem will be trodden under the command of MAN Beast of sea(sea means: peoples, and nations, and multitudes of all tongues), at last, he is the main ruler and guide of a universal and false Christianity with headquarter in Rome, but he posses a structural religious and satanic MONSTER of 7 heads and 10 horns, and upon his horns 10 crowns, and upon his 7 heads the NAME of BLASPHEMY. Therefore, when the COURT which is without the temple is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months, yeah, when the COURT is given to the Gentiles then the FIRST half of the last week of Daniel, the 70th, begins, and the MAN Beast of sea through the woman which rides upon him, the Roman CAtholic Church, he will ruler the satanic Antichrist's kingdom, together with the false messiah of the Jews-John 5:v.43-47, and 2 Thes. 2:v.4-9, and Revelation 13:v.11- in fact an esoteric, and kabbalistic, and spiritist messiah, tghe Beast of the earth with two horns like a lamb, a false lamb of course.
By the way, one of the 7 heads of the Beast of sea -a Gentile Beast- will be wounded mortally (South America) in the current time, and the false messiah-John 5:v.43-, the Beast of earth(earth here is Israel, the clay, the dry land), will health the wound head Beast of sea. How? The false messiah will give him his Power, and his Seat, and great Authority to the MAN Beasts of sea, then the POPE, the MAN Beast of sea, will sit in the Throne of the false messiah in Jerusalem.
Then will fulfill LITERALLY Revelation 13:v.12 to 18:
12 He -the MAN Beast of earth- will exercise all the power of the FIRST Beast before him, and causeth the earth(Israel) and them which dwell therein to worship the FIRST Beast-the Pope-, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he -the false messiah- doeth (will do) great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth (Israel) by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the Beast -the Beast of sea-; saying to them that dwell on the earth(Israel), that they should make an image to the Beast-Beast of sea-, which had the wound by a Sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the Beast, that the image of the Beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the Beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the Beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the Beast: for it is the number of a MAN (MAN BEAST); and his number is 666.
P.S.
The above Scriptures refer to the seventh and last Pope, think his nickname will be Paulus VII, in this way, the Pope Francis will die and another will be elected, and he will be the last Pope, probably the number 666 will be known in his name.
May our Lord GOD bless us, and give us His protection
Amen
-
15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
The kingdoms of this world have always belinged to God,
Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. Jb.41:11
If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Psa.50:12
to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, Dan.4:17
It's reasonable that people who say, "The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ", have simply realized what has always been true.
-
The kingdoms of this world have always belinged to God,
Luke 4:v.5-7
5 - The Devil, taking JESUS up into an high mountain, shewed unto him ALLl the kingdoms of the WORLD in a moment of time.
6 And the Devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. Jb.41:11
Through / by JESUS, GOD created the 1st, and 2nd, and the 3rd heavens, and the heaven of the heavens? For GOD, the heavens are as curtains, understand? By the way, GOD created until the current time only the first two heavens which "by the same Word are kept in store, RESERVED unto FIRE at this Day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men. Will be you know what is heaven?
If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Psa.50:12
to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, Dan.4:17
GOD is in the control of history, nothing random happens; yes, "the Most High rules in the kingdom of men", and will give it to His only heir, the Lord JESUS Christ, by whom GOD made the worlds, do you understand? The Scripture you quoted says: "The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are BECOME the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ" ; and His people, the true believers, the true Christians, shall reign with Him a thousand years. - Rev. 20:v.6 and Luke 20:v.35-36-
It's reasonable that people who say, "The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ", have simply realized what has always been true.
Who said that Scripture you have quoted in your post was the own JESUS, don't you know? The people who say the same things JESUS said are His disciples, and JESUS left very clear saying that "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. Matt.10:v.24-25
-
Oseas said,
6 And the Devil said unto him
Believe the devil if you want, but our Lord said,
there is no truth in him Jn.8:44
Oseas said,
For GOD, the heavens are as curtains, understand?
I understand this very well. The creation we see is a mirror of heaven and disappears when people grow in Christ,
And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. Isa.25:7
Oseas said,
"the Most High rules in the kingdom of men", and will give it to His only heir, the Lord JESUS Christ, by whom GOD made the worlds, do you understand?
I understand that as our Creator, Jesus didn't need to be given anything. He chose to be kind to people and let mankind continue to have what he owns
Oseas said,
Who said that Scripture you have quoted in your post was the own JESUS, don't you know?
I don't know what you mean by this, but my point is you seem to be mistaking Jesus's power with impotence.
-
Believe the devil if you want,
What you are preaching I will never do, evidently, your words are a stumbling block in my path.
journeyman said, but our Lord said,
there is no truth in him Jn.8:44
Yes, the Scripture says that, but It's interesting that JESUS didn't refute or contradict the Devil, you also didn't have a word that would refute the Devil. Why?
Oseas said,
For GOD, the heavens are as curtains, understand?
journeyman said, I understand this very well. The creation we see is a mirror of heaven and disappears when people grow in Christ,
Things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Let me ask: Do you know what is/are heaven(s)? Or you only know what you see: the sky?
journeyman said, And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. Isa.25:7
Yes, He will destroy surely. He said: Isaiah 33:v.10 to 14
10 Now will I rise, saith the Lord; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.
11 Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble: your breath, as fire, shall devour you.
12 And the people shall be as the burnings of lime: as thorns cut up shall they be burned in the fire.
13 Hear, ye that are far off (the Gentile peoples), what I have done; and, ye that are near(the Jewish people), acknowledge my might.
14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
Oseas said,
"the Most High rules in the kingdom of men", and will give it to His only heir, the Lord JESUS Christ, by whom GOD made the worlds, do you understand?
journeyman said, I understand that as our Creator, Jesus didn't need to be given anything. He chose to be kind to people and let mankind continue to have what he owns
You should understand that "The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD (Word of Devil) are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Rev. 11:v.15. AND THE NATIONS will be angry, furious ... Rev.11:v.18
journeyman said, It's reasonable that people who say, "The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ", have simply realized what has always been true.
Oseas said,
Who said that Scripture you have quoted in your post was the own JESUS, don't you know?
journeyman said, I don't know what you mean by this, but my point is you seem to be mistaking Jesus's power with impotence.
I meant that who said the biblical verse -"The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever"-Revelation 11:v.15, was the own JESUS who said it. This assertion has nothing to do with impotence, quite the contrary, it has to do with Omnipotence, understand? The people who say the same are disciples of JESUS and they confirm what JESUS said.
-
What you are preaching I will never do.....
Quoting the devil as any source of truth is doing it.
Yes, the Scripture says that, but It's interesting that JESUS didn't refute or contradict the Devil.....
Yes he did refute and contradict the devil. Our Lord showed by his answers that Satan isn't God.
Yes, He will destroy surely.....
My point is that in Christ, the curtains are destroyed. It's not difficult to see how the earth is a reflection of the heavens.
You should understand that "The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD (Word of Devil) are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. Rev. 11:v.15. AND THE NATIONS will be angry, furious ... Rev.11:v.18
I do understand right now that all kinddoms of this world are the Fathers and Sons. Tell the nations. You'll get an angry response.
I meant that who said This assertion has nothing to do with impotence, quite the contrary, it has to do with Omnipotence, understand?
I understand that for an Omnipotent God to lose possession of the kingdoms of this world for even a millisecond, would be impotence.