Featured The Parenthesis Church

ROFG - ROLLING ON FLOOR GUFFAWING!!!

120 replies, 13 pages, 1,277 views. What do you, EVEN 'Lilly', have to say now?

 

I would agree if you mean just as there is a distinction of persons in the unity of the Trinity.

One New Jerusalem with with two distinct peoples.

HankD

 

What did Jesus tell the disciples?

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luk 22:30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Far from the "twelve tribes" pertaining to "Israel" and the "twelve apostles" pertaining to "the Church," Revelation 21 is a vision of the fulfillment of what Jesus told these apostles. The passage is not making a distinction between two ontologically unique peoples of God, but rather the harmony of the authority of the twelve apostles in proclaiming the gospel and the multitude of their converts--the remnant of Israel--the true "twelve tribes."

Jesus said that He would give them "the keys to the kingdom," so that whatever they bind/loose on earth "shall have been bound/loosed in heaven." Contrary to what the Catholics teach, the bound and loosed are perfect participles, demonstrating that the apostles did not have autonomous authority to forgive or condemn people, but their authority was by proxy of Christ--through the Gospel--to proclaim through revelation what God had already determined in heaven.

Since the twelve apostles had these "keys" to proclaim the truth of the gospel by signs and wonders and revelation from the Holy Spirit, they were the "judges" of the "twelve tribes" when they saw thousands of Israelite converts and also when they "shook the dust from their feet" when their message was rejected.

 

I do, see my rebuttal to OR's objection.

There is a distinction of the persons in the Trinity yet a unity of the Godhead.

There will be one bride, the New Jerusalem, the eternal dwelling place of the redeemed of the abrahamic promise (both Jew and gentile) but a distinction within that city of Israel and the church.

HankD

 

What category do the OT Gentile Saints fall under, i.e., Isa 54:1, Ps 87, Ro 2:13-15?

 

There are not "two distinct peoples." The difference between "Israel" and "the church" is a difference in the mechanics of the covenant, the chronology, and the prophecy-fulfillment relationship. It is a vertical, not horizontal distinction.

Israel can be "Israel after the flesh" a reference either to the whole of geopolitical Israel, or to unregenerates in geopolitical Israel (1 Cor 10:18; Gal 4:23; Rom 11:7,14).
Israel can also refer to "true Israel"--the people to whom the promise to Abraham was made that receive the blessings of Abraham by faith in the Gospel (Gal 6:15-16). This Israel can either be the remnant of ethnic, geopolitical Israel who believed the gospel (Rom 11:1-6), or the union of them and the Gentiles "grafted in" to the same faith (Rom 11:17 c.f. Jer 11:16).

Israel and the Church are NOT paraellel, ontologically distinct entities with a distinct soteriology and distinct eternal promises. God does NOT have "two peoples." God has one people whose corporate manifestation has changed over time between the covenants.

Under the Old Covenant, God's people were identified under a geopolitical community. This communal covenant naturally had a mix of regenerates and unregenerates. God's promises not to cast away Israel was always to form, protect, and preserve a remnant--the true followers. Although national Israel was mostly Jewish genetically, Gentiles could join the covenant as proselytes.

Under the New Covenant, God's people are dispersed throughout the world. They are the faithful remnant of geopolitical Israel combined with the Gentiles who are "grafted in." They are "redeemed by thy blood out of every kindred, tongue, tribe, and nation" (Rev 5:9). They comprise only regenerates (Jer 31:31-34). One is a member of the New Covenant only "in My blood" (Luk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25). The definition of Israel under the New Covenant has "flowered" out from the geopolitical entity to the church of the diaspora. Those who have faith in Christ are "the children of Abraham" and are "blessed with Abraham" (Rom 9:6-8; Gal 3:7-9,14,16,22,26,29; 4:28-31; Rom 4:16-17). These passages are ridiculously clear that the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham that he would be "the father of many nations" is in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Therefore, there are not two peoples of God, but ONE.

There. Is. NO. Promise. From. God. Based. On. Genetics. Period.
God. Is. Not. A. Racial. Discriminator.
The. Promises. Of. God. Regard. Righteousness. NOT. Sperm.

 

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10:16; see also Gal 4:24-28, Isa 54:1, Ps 87, Ro 2:13-15

During the Mosiac Covenant there were indeed TWO peoples on earth, but they were all born from above children of the heavenly Zion.

 

You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. Amos 3:2

What is the meaning of that word I put in bold in this context? How intimate is the meaning in that word? Is it as intimate as say here, "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth:"

I would say that that passage in Amos was written somewhere between 750 BC and 721 BC and concerned the whole family that God had brought up out of the land of Egypt. However what was about to happen to that family which by now had been divided into two families? God was about to give a bill of divorce to one of them and the other would latter turn her back to God also.

Read the first chapter of the book of Hosea concerning these two peoples.

One God is going to continue to deal with but the other are about to become not my people. Or to put it another way, "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:" Where does the book of Hosea say these people will be found in the world? Is not, this phrase from Gen. 48:19 and his seed shall become a multitude of nations, the exact same phrase as found in Romans 11:25 until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in?

Who on the Old Testament did God say he was going to reconcile with? Read, Hosea. Who is the New Testament is God at this time reconciling?
Acts 15:14. At this time is he taking all of them or just some as a people for his name as stated in Ezekiel 36:22 for my names sake, and Jer. 3:14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

I think it is significant that these he brings to Zion (the mother of us all) whereas in Isa. 66 in one day Zion gives birth to a nation.

Are these not taken from the same people he gave a bill of divorce in verse 8 of which Judah (the Jews) learned nothing from by seeing this take place? Notice at this time he isn't taking all but some. In due time God will regather the others also.

The Jews of which Jesus was of that house were his own who he came to and are the fold of John 10. The other sheep are from the other family which came up out of Egypt. The two together make up the one flock, which has kingdom implications, see Robertson's Word Picture.

The church, the called out ones, a people for his name, will be the rulers with Jesus in the kingdom of God. At least that is my understanding until one of you can correct me.

BTW I do not understand all of this. These were just some of my thoughts.

 

OK, I think we have a minor difference in semantics here after I read your first paragraph though there is alot of food for thought there.

I agree that all God's people are regenerate both before and after the cross.

So, it's nothing I am going to get too excited about.

I think its interesting however that the scripture says:

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.​

And not the "seed of Adam" or "the seed of the woman".​

Also what is your take on the 144,000 of the twelve tribes of Israel in the Book of Revelation?​

Are they metaphorical, allegorical, symbolic, literal, etc...?​

I am genuinely curious.​

Thanks
HankD​

 

Excellent question. The immediate answer is - I'm not sure.

Although there was a "court of the gentiles" in the OT temple.

A like question would be - What about believers (e.g. Job) before the advent of the Nation of Israel?

HankD

 

And if ye are Christ`s, then are ye Abraham`s seed, heirs according to promise. Gal 3:29

I don't get your point. Maybe something's been lost in the translation?

New International Version (©1984)
For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham's descendants.

New Living Translation (©2007)
We also know that the Son did not come to help angels; he came to help the descendants of Abraham.

English Standard Version (©2001)
For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but He gives help to the descendant of Abraham.

International Standard Version (©2008)
For it is clear that he did not come to help angels. No, he came to help Abraham's descendants,

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
So Jesus helps Abraham's descendants rather than helping angels.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the nature of Abraham.

American King James Version
For truly he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

American Standard Version
For verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the seed of Abraham.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For no where doth he take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold.

Darby Bible Translation
For he does not indeed take hold of angels by the hand, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham.

English Revised Version
For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham.

Weymouth New Testament
For assuredly it is not to angels that He is continually reaching a helping hand, but it is to the descendants of Abraham.

World English Bible
For most certainly, he doesn't give help to angels, but he gives help to the seed of Abraham.

Young's Literal Translation
for, doubtless, of messengers it doth not lay hold, but of seed of Abraham it layeth hold,

 

Excellent answer. We should all use that reply more often.

That was then, this is now:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10:16

having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2:15

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: Ro 10:12

where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all. Col 3:11

There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13

But you insist/persist that there is still a distinction, you insist there is still TWO.

 

Eph 2:14 ¶ For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: ​

Did I read that some consider this wall a wall that separated gentiles and Israel?

 

Maybe you missed this part?:

"that he might create in himself of the two one"

Or this part:

"they shall become one flock, one shepherd"

 

The "seed of Abraham" in this context is referring to genetics. Yes, Jesus was a physical Jew in the flesh.

However, you must remember that someone who was not a physical descendant of Abraham could become one de facto by become a proselyte to the covenant. This alone voids the idea that God has ever had any special promise to anyone based on his genetics. There is no promise of God to anyone found outside a proper relationship with Him.

Think Rahab the harlot of Jericho, and to a lesser extent, Ruth the Moabitess. These two were in the line of Jesus; therefore, Jesus was not 100% Jewish, yet He was enough to be considered a physical Jew. Indeed, He came "to confirm the promises made to the fathers" (Rom 15:18), but then also "that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy, as it is written" (Rom 15:19). The two folds became one in the church.

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Dan 9:25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
Dan 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I believe that the 70 weeks of Daniel does not fit the dispensational description, but rather as follows:

1. The 70 weeks began with the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem and the temple, which took 7 weeks (49 years).
2. Then, 62 weeks (441 years) later, "Messiah the Price" was manifest. This was at the baptism of Jesus. John the Baptist passed off his mantle to Jesus and said "Behold, the Lamb of God..." This was the part of the 70 weeks determined "to anoint the most holy [one]." In the Temple, when Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah, He said of "the spirit of the lord has anointed me..." that "this day are these words fulfilled in your ears."
3. All the things listed in verse 24 were accomplished by Jesus during His earthly ministry and with His atonement and resurrection.
4. In verse 26, it says "and AFTER threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off." I believe that the 69th week ended at His baptism. The 70th week began with His earthly ministry, which lasted 3 1/2 years.
5. Verse 27 elaborates on the above. "He [Messiah the Prince] shall confirm [or strengthen] the covenant with [the] many for one week." The "covenant" with "thy people" (the nation of Israel) was strengthened for "one week." During Jesus' 3 1/2 ministry, He said "I am not come but for the lost sheep of the house of Israel." He was "the minister to the circumcision, confirming the promises made to the fathers." Yet, He also proclaimed--according to prophecy--that He would bring Gentiles together into one fold.
6. In the midst of this 70th week, ("after" 7 + 62 weeks) Messiah was "cut off"--His crucifixion. Here, He "caused the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." He officially ended the Old Covenant and ushered in the New Covenant, although the Jews "under bondage" to the Law failed to realize this until the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. He put an end to the animal sacrifices as He was the Lamb of God!
7. The destruction of the city in verse 26 does not have to fall chronologically in the 70th week. It is the consequence of "thy people" people failing to heed Messiah in the 70th week. The "people of the prince that shall come" are the armies of emperor Titus who destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Jesus told the disciples in the Olivet Discourse that "one stone shall not be left upon another" (Mat 24:2). He had just pronounced the woes on the scribes and Pharisees saying "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (23:38). He asked them concerning the Temple: "See ye not these things?" They asked Him "When shall these things be?" He tells them that they will face persecutions.
   He then said "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet." This happened in their sight in A.D. 70.
   Now, "the prince that shall come" could either be Titus, or still "Messiah the Prince." You might ask "You mean the people of Messiah would desecrate His own temple"?
   
   Mat 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
   Mat 21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
   Mat 21:35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
   Mat 21:36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
   Mat 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
   Mat 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
   Mat 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
   Mat 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
   Mat 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
   Mat 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
   Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
   
   ...
   
   Mat 22:1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
   Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
   Mat 22:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
   Mat 22:4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
   Mat 22:5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
   Mat 22:6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
   Mat 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
   Mat 22:8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
   Mat 22:9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
   
   If Jesus is the Son of the King, and the King commanded His armies to destroy the city, would that not make emperor Titus' armies "the people of [Messiah the prince that shall come"?
8. What of the remaining 3 1/2 years of "the covenant"? Well, the early church began in Jerusalem at Pentecost, the language of the apostles' ministry in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria was heavily Israel-centric. I believe that the conversion of Cornelius was 3 1/2 years after the Crucifixion, ending the "covenant" with Israel. The "mystery hid in God" "that the Gentiles would be fellow heirs and of the same body" began with Cornelius.

I am not an expert on the book of Revelation, but I know it has much symbolism. Numbers and things shown to John in a vision can represent something. It is quite possible that the 144,000 (12,000) from each tribe are symbolic of the massive number of those who would comprise the church. It could also represent the massive number of those Jews who would comprise the remnant.

One question on this is, if these represent the literal tribes of a literal ethnic Israel, why is the tribe of Dan not mentioned, but the "tribe" of Joseph is, along with a tribe of Manasseh (which you know is one of Joseph's sons)?