the redemption of Israel

[blessedwife318]

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

This statement was made in the thread about arguments against the Post Trib Rapture, but it is a statement I want to focus more on. That thread has been sufficiently derailed and this statement is buried under at least 10 pages of post now so it has effectively been lost. I linked it so that anyone could look at it in its original context.

My first thought when I saw this statement was that, what was being communicated was that no Jews were ever saved by the Blood of Christ, and I would hope we would all agree that it is an incorrect view, especially given that all the Apostles were Jews.

Darrell C took me to task for two words that I switched out in what I saw being communicated. Saved for Redeemed, and Jews for Israel. So for the sake of this discussion I will be using Redeemed or any word with Redeem at its root to try to make my point.

Although on a side note I would like to hear how Darrell C views Redeemed vs Saved, because often they are used interchangeably in Christian Circles, (although a quick Google searched showed that the RCC has given those words distinct theological implications.)

Anyways back to the quote at hand.

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

Darrell on more than one occasion has insisted on a very clear divided between Israel and the Church, so while I disagree with that view based on Romans 9-11, and other passages, I’m willing for the sake of argument to assume that point while looking at this statement.

Israel then means anyone descended from Jacob or Israel, or in other words the 12 tribes of Israel.
Let’s see what the Bible says about their redemption:

In the Pentetuch there is a lot of verses that talk about them being redeemed from Egypt, which we do know from the NT is a type, but we will let the literal sense stand and say those are just about their redemption from Egypt, so we won’t look at those verse. In Ruth they are used to talk about a kindsman redeemer so we will leave those passages alone as well. I will also not go into Job as I have never heard him ascribed to Israel.

In 2 Sam David recognizes that it is God who Redeemed him.

But David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, “As the LORD lives, who has redeemed my life out of every adversity,

2 Sam 4:9
So here we have David, soon to be King of Israel recognizing that He has been redeemed from adversity.

Let’s keep looking at Redeemed as it is used throughout the Bible.

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be acceptable in your sight,
O LORD, my rock and my redeemer.

Ps. 19:14

Here we have David once again recognizing God as his redeemer.
That Psalms are full of mentions of being redeemed or of God as the redeemer of members of Israel.

My lips will shout for joy,
when I sing praises to you;
my soul also, which you have redeemed.

Ps. 71:23

We even have redemption being talked about in the past tense.
Remember your congregation, which you have purchased of old, which you have redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage! Remember Mount Zion, where you have dwelt.

Ps. 74:2

Oh give thanks to the LORD, for he is good,
for his steadfast love endures forever!
2 Let the redeemed of the LORD say so,
whom he has redeemed from trouble

Ps. 107:1-2
And its not just the Psalms that talk about redemption in the past tense

But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.

Isa. 42:1

21 Remember these things, O Jacob,
and Israel, for you are my servant;
I formed you; you are my servant;
O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.
22 I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud
and your sins like mist;
return to me, for I have redeemed you.
23 Sing, O heavens, for the LORD has done it;
shout, O depths of the earth;
break forth into singing, O mountains,
O forest, and every tree in it!
For the LORD has redeemed Jacob,
and will be glorified in Israel.

Isa 44:21-23

This passage specifically talks about their sins, being blotted out, and a calling to Israel to turn back to God because of their redemption.

I think I have made my case the the OT shows that Israel was Redeemed in the OT. Now lets see what the NT says

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people"

Luke 1:68

Again notice the past tense of Redeemed here in Zechariah’s Prophecy
Its Prophecy and yet he uses the past tense, because it is a sure thing.

Now I know that DC is going to point out that I have left off the next part of his sentence “by the blood of Christ” well I am getting there, I just wanted to make sure there could be no argument about Israel being redeemed.
Well that is where the wonderful book of Hebrews comes in, as Hebrews sheds a lot of light on the OT, showing how Christ was shown though types and shadows (and that He is Better than all of them)

11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

Heb 9:11-15

Now I was asked to look at Heb 9:11-15 in the other thread and I went into it a bit showing how this passages shows that Christ is a Better Sacrifice, because He is shedding His own blood, not the blood of goats and bulls. The important verse for my argument is vs 15. But since it starts with “therefore” it’s always important to look at what came before.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant

Therefore since Christ is a better Sacrifice, He is the mediator of the New Covenant. What does this do? It allows for the called to receive the promise. Who is included in the called? Those under the first covenant. What is the first Covenant? The Law, and who was under the Law? Israel.
It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

To say that Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.
Is to say that there is another means of redemption outside of Christ, and his shed blood, but Hebrews makes that impossible.

Now I know that DC will probably bring up the fact that I did not touch on his last sentence, of everying member of the churching being redeemed by the blood of Christ, but I will just say I doubt there is anyone that would argue against that statement, I just left his whole statement in tact so as not to be accused of taking it out of context.

Also, since I said for the sake of argument that I will assume a clear divide between Israel and the Church (although it’s really hard to do so when the passage I showed in Hebrews merges them together in Christ) I decided to leave the last part of his statement alone. To go into that next statement, with the assumption of a clear divide, would cause a lot of problems when you talk about the Apostles who are all members of Israel and also the church since the statements said: not one member of Israel.

I will state it again, I disagree with the quoted statement even when making sure to not switch out any words. I do not think that statement has any Biblical Grounds, therefore I cannot let it stand, as it is talking about Redemption which is a crucial doctrine.


This is what happens when I can't sleep. I may not reply too much since we are still on vacation.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C took me to task for two words that I switched out in what I saw being communicated. Saved for Redeemed, and Jews for Israel. So for the sake of this discussion I will be using Redeemed or any word with Redeem at its root to try to make my point.

I will just try to focus on the point at hand, which is the difference between Eternal Redemption as effected by Christ through His Work on the Cross, and Jews being saved.

All "Jews" were saved...from Egypt. They were redeemed from Egypt. Do you equate that redemption with Redemption in Christ?

Yet you say...

So for the sake of this discussion I will be using Redeemed or any word with Redeem at its root to try to make my point.

We simply cannot do that. If we do, we forsake context.

And by the way, "taking you to task" was not the point, raising your awareness and trying to bring a focus to a discussion was, so I am glad you have started this thread with that focal point in mind.

Although on a side note I would like to hear how Darrell C views Redeemed vs Saved, because often they are used interchangeably in Christian Circles, (although a quick Google searched showed that the RCC has given those words distinct theological implications.)

I agree, they are used interchangeably...in Christian circles.

That is not how we establish sound doctrine.

We establish the truth from Scripture itself, keeping context in view at all times. It is not the RCC that has given these words distinct theological meaning (rather than implication), it is the Word of God that has done that.

An issue like this is not something that will be understood in a few posts, particular if there is an antagonism between those discussing it. Sometimes that antagonism can create a tendency to defend, rather than examine. So I will give just a few passages to illustrate the Division that Scripture teaches between Israel and the Church, stating first that we can see that Israel was the People of God in the Old Testament. That is simply a Bible Basic:



2 Chronicles 7:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.


We can draw on numerous verses and passages to illustrate this truth.

The question is...was that relationship equal to relationship through the New Covenant? Did the Covenant of Law bestow the same quality of relationship?

The answer is no, and we can look at the various aspects of that relationship to see the differences. The Book of Hebrews goes through a lot of trouble to make several of the differences clear, and that Christ and the New Covenant is Superior to the Old/First.

Consider first the difference of the point for which you started this thread: redemption.

Answer the question...what does redemption in Christ mean?

How is it accomplished?

Well, we are told:


Hebrews 9:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


What this passage is doing is contrasting Levitical Services with the Work of Christ. And the one thing to understand is that those Services could not take away sins.

Can't have Eternal Redemption apart from removing the Penalty of sin.

Eternal Redemption is accomplished only through Christ, and through His Blood (Death). Christ had to die in order to accomplish that.

Note v.15, and ask yourself what it means that the "transgressions under the First Testament (Covenant of Law)...were redeemed," that they which are called might receive...the Promise."

Now here is a point to this argument for the distinction: the Law was the God prescribed means of relationship between God and man. That does not mean that Gentiles were not "saved" (in the context of those Eras), but, without question Israel (Nationally) was the People of God Created by God, and the (Covenant of) Law the formalized "contract," so to speak. Within that Covenant was the God prescribed method of atonement, and while some deny it, remission of sins was accomplished by the God prescribed sacrifices meant for atonement that remission of sins be granted.

But...


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


That Covenant was made obsolete only when the Bread of Heaven came down from Heaven, shed His Own Blood, thus obtaining Eternal Redemption...for us.

This is not the same as...


2 Samuel 4:9

King James Version (KJV)

9 And David answered Rechab and Baanah his brother, the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, and said unto them, As the Lord liveth, who hath redeemed my soul out of all adversity,



Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Go back to Hebrews 10:1-4 and note that the sacrifices of the Law, which David himself offered, could not take away sins, and more importantly...could not make the comers thereunto (the worshippers)...perfect. The context of Hebrews 10 is primarily in relation to remission of sins, and the remission found under the Law was imperfect, or, incomplete, as the Greek means.

If David had eternal redemption, then we would have to equate the sacrifices of the Law being performed then with the Sacrifice of Christ. But we need not do that when we have the Writer's clear treatment of those issues, heavily addressed in chapters Nine and Ten.

The difference between that redemption and Eternal Redemption is eternal versus temporal and temporary, and this is why the Writer asks...




Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.


When we overlook the context of the Old and New Testaments, and miss the fact that the Old is primarily temporal/physical, we diminish the magnitude of what Christ has accomplished. No man in the Old Testament could say...it is finished. No One but Christ is both Author...and Finisher (Completer).

The Old Testament Saints were "saved," meaning that their calling and choosing was assured, but that does not negate their need for remission of sins in completion, which was only accomplished by Christ, and only when He died upon the Cross. In "Christian Circles" it is popular to say "they were saved on credit," and technically that is true, however, we do not neglect the Word of God which makes it clear that the atonement for sins, from the Garden, was only a temporary covering for sin, and did not remove the separation between God and man. Adam's sins were covered, and an animal died to cover that sin, but Adam, and all of his offspring remained separated from God. Israel was the "Vine" brought out of Egypt, but Christ is the "True Vine," the true means of relationship with God, and that contrasted with the temporal/physical provision provided them.

Now the point made here begs the question, "Can we equate remission of sins achieved through vicarious animal sacrifice with that achieved through Christ?"

Israel was commanded to offer up those sacrifices according to the Law, which was the means of provision for relationship with God at that time. Israel was a literal Nation who were the people of God, but, not all of Israel were "Israel," meaning that not all were of faith. Those of faith are not called the Church, because they were not the Church. The Church began at Pentecost when the Spirit began revealing the Mystery of Christ to the hearts of men. Prior to that, though we can in retrospect understand the Prophecy of the Gospel of Christ as found in Prophecy, this was the Hidden Wisdom of God, a Mystery not revealed until the due time:


1 Timothy 2

King James Version (KJV)

5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.


That is why we can say...

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

We cannot say "Not one member of Israel was saved," because in the eternal perspective according to calling and Election many were saved (though few when contrasted with unbelievers) by the grace of God through faith. But before these men and women could be reconciled, the penalty for their sin had to be eternally redeemed through the Shed Blood of Christ.



Hebrews 9:12 & 15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


This is why the Writer will make the point in Hebrews 11 that these all died in faith, but received not the Promises, they were not made perfect in regards to eternal salvation.

But, everyone in this Age who believes on the name of Christ...is.

The distinction, therefore, is drawn between the faithful of the Old Testament (in all Eras) and the faithful who believe on the revelation of Christ not present prior to the unveiling of the Mystery of Christ. That this was a mystery is seen in numerous passages, and combined with the Testimony of all Scripture we can see that illustrated in nearly any given passage we turn to.

David died at peace with God, but the last sacrifice for his sin he would have offered up would have been an animal dying to atone for his sins. The provision of the Cross was still a promise in his day, and he was counted faithful and "saved" by the grace of God through that faith, which was evident in his obedience to the Word and will of God.

Which would have been to offer up those sacrifices for the remission of sins. That was the God prescribed method from the Garden, but that has been made obsolete by the Sacrifice of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant, which brings relationship with God on an eternal basis, a primary aspect being the Eternal Indwelling of God.

And that is the one focal point I would point out (to begin with) in a discussion which examines the Doctrine of the Distinction between Israel (Old Testament/Covenant People of God) and the Church (New Testament/Covenant People of God).

I will also point out that this does not lend itself to a belief that there are Two Peoples of God, for we know that the faithful of all Economies presented in Scripture are of the One Fold, with One Shepherd, which will not full be realized until the Eternal State. But we can account the same salvation through Christ to Noah, Abraham, and Moses, though we do not equate the aspects of the relationship to God available to them at the time.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

This statement was made in the thread about arguments against the Post Trib Rapture, but it is a statement I want to focus more on. That thread has been sufficiently derailed and this statement is buried under at least 10 pages of post now so it has effectively been lost. I linked it so that anyone could look at it in its original context.

My first thought when I saw this statement was that, what was being communicated was that no Jews were ever saved by the Blood of Christ, and I would hope we would all agree that it is an incorrect view, especially given that all the Apostles were Jews.

Darrell C took me to task for two words that I switched out in what I saw being communicated. Saved for Redeemed, and Jews for Israel. So for the sake of this discussion I will be using Redeemed or any word with Redeem at its root to try to make my point.

Although on a side note I would like to hear how Darrell C views Redeemed vs Saved, because often they are used interchangeably in Christian Circles, (although a quick Google searched showed that the RCC has given those words distinct theological implications.)

Anyways back to the quote at hand.


Darrell on more than one occasion has insisted on a very clear divided between Israel and the Church, so while I disagree with that view based on Romans 9-11, and other passages, I’m willing for the sake of argument to assume that point while looking at this statement.

Israel then means anyone descended from Jacob or Israel, or in other words the 12 tribes of Israel.
Let’s see what the Bible says about their redemption:

In the Pentetuch there is a lot of verses that talk about them being redeemed from Egypt, which we do know from the NT is a type, but we will let the literal sense stand and say those are just about their redemption from Egypt, so we won’t look at those verse. In Ruth they are used to talk about a kindsman redeemer so we will leave those passages alone as well. I will also not go into Job as I have never heard him ascribed to Israel.

In 2 Sam David recognizes that it is God who Redeemed him.

2 Sam 4:9
So here we have David, soon to be King of Israel recognizing that He has been redeemed from adversity.

Let’s keep looking at Redeemed as it is used throughout the Bible.


Ps. 19:14

Here we have David once again recognizing God as his redeemer.
That Psalms are full of mentions of being redeemed or of God as the redeemer of members of Israel.


Ps. 71:23


Ps. 74:2


Ps. 107:1-2
And its not just the Psalms that talk about redemption in the past tense


Isa. 42:1


Isa 44:21-23

This passage specifically talks about their sins, being blotted out, and a calling to Israel to turn back to God because of their redemption.

I think I have made my case the the OT shows that Israel was Redeemed in the OT. Now lets see what the NT says


Luke 1:68

Again notice the past tense of Redeemed here in Zechariah’s Prophecy
Its Prophecy and yet he uses the past tense, because it is a sure thing.

Now I know that DC is going to point out that I have left off the next part of his sentence “by the blood of Christ” well I am getting there, I just wanted to make sure there could be no argument about Israel being redeemed.
Well that is where the wonderful book of Hebrews comes in, as Hebrews sheds a lot of light on the OT, showing how Christ was shown though types and shadows (and that He is Better than all of them)


Heb 9:11-15

Now I was asked to look at Heb 9:11-15 in the other thread and I went into it a bit showing how this passages shows that Christ is a Better Sacrifice, because He is shedding His own blood, not the blood of goats and bulls. The important verse for my argument is vs 15. But since it starts with “therefore” it’s always important to look at what came before.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant

Therefore since Christ is a better Sacrifice, He is the mediator of the New Covenant. What does this do? It allows for the called to receive the promise. Who is included in the called? Those under the first covenant. What is the first Covenant? The Law, and who was under the Law? Israel.
It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

To say that Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.
Is to say that there is another means of redemption outside of Christ, and his shed blood, but Hebrews makes that impossible.

Now I know that DC will probably bring up the fact that I did not touch on his last sentence, of everying member of the churching being redeemed by the blood of Christ, but I will just say I doubt there is anyone that would argue against that statement, I just left his whole statement in tact so as not to be accused of taking it out of context.

Also, since I said for the sake of argument that I will assume a clear divide between Israel and the Church (although it’s really hard to do so when the passage I showed in Hebrews merges them together in Christ) I decided to leave the last part of his statement alone. To go into that next statement, with the assumption of a clear divide, would cause a lot of problems when you talk about the Apostles who are all members of Israel and also the church since the statements said: not one member of Israel.

I will state it again, I disagree with the quoted statement even when making sure to not switch out any words. I do not think that statement has any Biblical Grounds, therefore I cannot let it stand, as it is talking about Redemption which is a crucial doctrine.


This is what happens when I can't sleep. I may not reply too much since we are still on vacation.

blessedwife318

I noticed that statement by DC and planned to comment or start a thread. Responding as simply as possible:

Pre-trib-dispensationalism is Biblically incorrect. Error begets error, begets error, begets grievous error, and eventually begets heresy.

I have no idea what DC was thinking when he wrote that heretical statement or if he was thinking. Anyhow, if a person is not redeemed and reconciled to GOD by Jesus Christ then they are eternally lost. That is my belief and I believe that is what Scripture teaches.

My advice: Forget about DC and enjoy your vacation. Don't know whether I mentioned it or not but I have a grand niece who lives in Scottsdale. She is married with one child, a boy. Haven't met her husband yet!

 

[SovereignGrace]

Everyone who makes it to heaven, whether they be Jew or Gentile, will have to have had the shed blood of Jesus Christ cleanse them, blot out their sins.

 

[Darrell C]

blessedwife318

I noticed that statement by DC and planned to comment or start a thread. Responding as simply as possible:

Pre-trib-dispensationalism is Biblically incorrect. Error begets error, begets error, begets grievous error, and eventually begets heresy.

Typical.

Now address the points made and show I am a heretic, lol.

So, just cruising through, saw my statement, and planned to comment or start a thread...

...? lol

You crack me up, OR. Still have me on ignore because you cannot argue the points?

I have no idea what DC was thinking

Well...that can be corrected. Read the post, and if you still think you can show that the Writer, and the Holy Spirit, were in error to say that Christ obtained eternal redemption for us, or...

...you can show that men received the remission of sins through Christ under Old Testament Economies...

...or why men were offering up animal sacrifice by the command of God when, after all, according to you...they were eternally redeemed...

...be my guest.

Just know that talking about people behind their backs to satisfy your need to further your terrorist campaign is really pitiful.

Ten years, you brag, you've been on this forum, and what are you doing with your time?

Backbiting.

That's some theology you follow there.

when he wrote that heretical statement or if he was thinking.

That I was thinking is quite evident in the post, lol.

Give it a try.

If you like, I can start it with "Once upon a time..."

Anyhow, if a person is not redeemed and reconciled to GOD by Jesus Christ then they are eternally lost.

Sorry, no.

You are forgetting the grace of God in regards to man.

It is that grace by which God allowed men not to die for their sin, but offer up animals. Go back and look at Adam and Eve's covering for sin. Look at Abel's sacrifice. Look at Noah's. Look at Abraham's. Look at Job's.

All prior to the Law.

Now, you want to tell me how it is that men were eternally forgiven and redeemed...through those sacrifices?

You want to tell me why you reject a memorial sacrifice in the Millennial Kingdom, yet ascribe an efficacious nature on an eternal level...to the blood of bulls and goats?

Be glad to hear that theology.

That is my belief and I believe that is what Scripture teaches.

Well, sorry, but you are wrong.

That is why we read...

Hebrews 1:1-2

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;



...and then the writer goes on to show why the Hebrew people must leave the First Covenant and embrace Christ.

My advice: Forget about DC and enjoy your vacation.

Good advice, I too would tell her to enjoy her time with her husband and make their relationship the focus.

But I would not want her to forget the moving of God in her heart as she considers Scripture.

Don't know whether I mentioned it or not but I have a grand niece who lives in Scottsdale. She is married with one child, a boy. Haven't met her husband yet!

Sure hope that fellow isn't a Dispensational, lol.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Everyone who makes it to heaven, whether they be Jew or Gentile, will have to have had the shed blood of Jesus Christ cleanse them, blot out their sins.

That is true, however...when did men start going to Heaven?


God bless.

 

[DHK]

Everyone who makes it to heaven, whether they be Jew or Gentile, will have to have had the shed blood of Jesus Christ cleanse them, blot out their sins.

When God provided the very first sacrifice for Adam and Eve, and blood was shed on their behalf, how much of Christ's atoning sacrifice did Adam and Eve understand?
When Abel came before the Lord and offered of the flock that he had, an animal to the Lord, how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did he understand?
How much of the atoning sacrifice did Cain know that he was rebelling against when he refused to do so?

 

[Iconoclast]

Quote:

“Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people"
Luke 1:68

Again notice the past tense of Redeemed here in Zechariah’s Prophecy
Its Prophecy and yet he uses the past tense, because it is a sure thing.

redemption for all of God's elect was certain because of the covenant of redemption.

the grace was fixed before the world began....The plan unfolds in time, the accomplishment was certain to happen, all included in the promise were eternally secured when God worked grace in them...

God deals with man by Covenant....not dispensationalism.

 

[DHK]

redemption for all of God's elect was certain because of the covenant of redemption.

the grace was fixed before the world began....The plan unfolds in time, the accomplishment was certain to happen, all included in the promise were eternally secured when God worked grace in them...

God deals with man by Covenant....not dispensationalism.

He does both. And that particular covenant was with Israel. Isolating a text as a proof text is what cults do. Look at the context.

Luk 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
Luk 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
Luk 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
Luk 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
Luk 1:75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
Luk 1:76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
Luk 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
Luk 1:78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
Luk 1:79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
Luk 1:80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

This is the OT prophet Zacharias prohesying of his son John:

Luk 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

The entire prophesy is about the nation Israel: his people, us, Israel, our God, our father Abraham, visited us, promised to our fathers, his holy covenant.

In no way does this passage speak about the NT Gentile believer.
Read the whole context.

 

[Iconoclast]

He does both. And that particular covenant was with Israel. Isolating a text as a proof text is what cults do. Look at the context.

Luk 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,
Luk 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people,
Luk 1:69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David;
Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
Luk 1:74 That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
Luk 1:75 In holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.
Luk 1:76 And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
Luk 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,
Luk 1:78 Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us,
Luk 1:79 To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
Luk 1:80 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his shewing unto Israel.

This is the OT prophet Zacharias prohesying of his son John:

Luk 1:67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying,

The entire prophesy is about the nation Israel: his people, us, Israel, our God, our father Abraham, visited us, promised to our fathers, his holy covenant.

In no way does this passage speak about the NT Gentile believer.
Read the whole context.

This proves my point....you are without understanding concerning the Covenant of redemption....you have no idea.....


22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

What were the gentiles grafted into????
gal3
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

 

[DHK]

This proves my point....you are without understanding concerning the Covenant of redemption....you have no idea.....

The passage you quoted is irrelevant to the prophesy of Zacharias.
Read a book on hermeneutics.

 

[Iconoclast]

The passage you quoted is irrelevant to the prophesy of Zacharias.
Read a book on hermeneutics.

You can remain in denial.....Lk 1 speaks of the Holy covenant;;;


Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham

The Holy Spirit has him prophesy about the Covenant as it was passed on to ABRAHAM

The same Holy Spirit has Paul tell us...the heathen gentiles were always part of the gospel as revealed in the Abrahamic covenant....
connect the dots.....or not:wavey::wavey: the rest of us believe it:thumbs:

 

[DHK]

You can remain in denial.....Lk 1 speaks of the Holy covenant;;;


Luk 1:70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
Luk 1:71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
Luk 1:72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham

The Holy Spirit has him prophesy about the Covenant as it was passed on to ABRAHAM

The same Holy Spirit has Paul tell us...the heathen gentiles were always part of the gospel as revealed in the Abrahamic covenant....
connect the dots.....or not:wavey::wavey: the rest of us believe it:thumbs:

Yes. Luke was the one doing the writing. Zacharias was the one doing the speaking. He was, in fact, prophesying of the ministry of his son, John the Baptist--nothing to do with NT Gentile believers. He was speaking of Israel, and specifically mentioned the Abrahamic covenant in relation to Israel, himself as an OT prophet and the coming of his son, John, the last of the OT prophets.
As you quoted in verse 73:
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham.
--We are not followers of Abraham, and Abraham is not our father.
He is speaking of Israel all throughout. The "us" refers to Israel, and no one but Israel. You are in denial to that fact. This is before Christ was even born. There was no "church" at this point in history. It didn't even exist. This is still an OT "dispensation." It is a time when they are under the law, and not under grace. Later when John would be born, and when Jesus would be born, both mothers would respectively go to the priests and offer sin offerings on behalf of their own selves. Why? Christ had not yet died and shed his blood, or paid the price.

 

[SovereignGrace]

When God provided the very first sacrifice for Adam and Eve, and blood was shed on their behalf, how much of Christ's atoning sacrifice did Adam and Eve understand?
When Abel came before the Lord and offered of the flock that he had, an animal to the Lord, how much of the atoning sacrifice of Christ did he understand?
How much of the atoning sacrifice did Cain know that he was rebelling against when he refused to do so?

Again, no one will get to heaven without the shed blood of Jesus Christ. You look at the cross as an one time event, and it did happen in time, but it has eternal consequences. His blood covered the sins of those who died in faith pre-cross, as they were looking towards Christ and His redemptive work of the cross. We look back at the cross. It was a one time event in time that covers all the sins of all His sheep, pre- and post-cross.

 

[SovereignGrace]

That is true, however...when did men start going to Heaven?


God bless.

Enoch? Probably as soon as the first believer took his or her last breath.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

As you quoted in verse 73:
Luk 1:73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham.
--We are not followers of Abraham, and Abraham is not our father.

Er.....excuse me!
Romans 4:11. 'And [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also.' See also Gal. 3:7-9, 26-29; Phil. 3:3.

 

[Aaron]

This statement was made in the thread about arguments against the Post Trib Rapture, but it is a statement I want to focus more on. That thread has been sufficiently derailed and this statement is buried under at least 10 pages of post now so it has effectively been lost. I linked it so that anyone could look at it in its original context.

My first thought when I saw this statement was that, what was being communicated was that no Jews were ever saved by the Blood of Christ, and I would hope we would all agree that it is an incorrect view, especially given that all the Apostles were Jews.

Darrell C took me to task for two words that I switched out in what I saw being communicated. Saved for Redeemed, and Jews for Israel. So for the sake of this discussion I will be using Redeemed or any word with Redeem at its root to try to make my point.

Although on a side note I would like to hear how Darrell C views Redeemed vs Saved, because often they are used interchangeably in Christian Circles, (although a quick Google searched showed that the RCC has given those words distinct theological implications.)

Anyways back to the quote at hand.


Darrell on more than one occasion has insisted on a very clear divided between Israel and the Church, so while I disagree with that view based on Romans 9-11, and other passages, I’m willing for the sake of argument to assume that point while looking at this statement.

Israel then means anyone descended from Jacob or Israel, or in other words the 12 tribes of Israel.
Let’s see what the Bible says about their redemption:

In the Pentetuch there is a lot of verses that talk about them being redeemed from Egypt, which we do know from the NT is a type, but we will let the literal sense stand and say those are just about their redemption from Egypt, so we won’t look at those verse. In Ruth they are used to talk about a kindsman redeemer so we will leave those passages alone as well. I will also not go into Job as I have never heard him ascribed to Israel.

In 2 Sam David recognizes that it is God who Redeemed him.

2 Sam 4:9
So here we have David, soon to be King of Israel recognizing that He has been redeemed from adversity.

Let’s keep looking at Redeemed as it is used throughout the Bible.


Ps. 19:14

Here we have David once again recognizing God as his redeemer.
That Psalms are full of mentions of being redeemed or of God as the redeemer of members of Israel.


Ps. 71:23


Ps. 74:2


Ps. 107:1-2
And its not just the Psalms that talk about redemption in the past tense


Isa. 42:1


Isa 44:21-23

This passage specifically talks about their sins, being blotted out, and a calling to Israel to turn back to God because of their redemption.

I think I have made my case the the OT shows that Israel was Redeemed in the OT. Now lets see what the NT says


Luke 1:68

Again notice the past tense of Redeemed here in Zechariah’s Prophecy
Its Prophecy and yet he uses the past tense, because it is a sure thing.

Now I know that DC is going to point out that I have left off the next part of his sentence “by the blood of Christ” well I am getting there, I just wanted to make sure there could be no argument about Israel being redeemed.
Well that is where the wonderful book of Hebrews comes in, as Hebrews sheds a lot of light on the OT, showing how Christ was shown though types and shadows (and that He is Better than all of them)


Heb 9:11-15

Now I was asked to look at Heb 9:11-15 in the other thread and I went into it a bit showing how this passages shows that Christ is a Better Sacrifice, because He is shedding His own blood, not the blood of goats and bulls. The important verse for my argument is vs 15. But since it starts with “therefore” it’s always important to look at what came before.
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant

Therefore since Christ is a better Sacrifice, He is the mediator of the New Covenant. What does this do? It allows for the called to receive the promise. Who is included in the called? Those under the first covenant. What is the first Covenant? The Law, and who was under the Law? Israel.
It is the blood of Christ that redeems us. It has always been the blood of Christ that redeems people.

To say that Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.
Is to say that there is another means of redemption outside of Christ, and his shed blood, but Hebrews makes that impossible.

Now I know that DC will probably bring up the fact that I did not touch on his last sentence, of everying member of the churching being redeemed by the blood of Christ, but I will just say I doubt there is anyone that would argue against that statement, I just left his whole statement in tact so as not to be accused of taking it out of context.

Also, since I said for the sake of argument that I will assume a clear divide between Israel and the Church (although it’s really hard to do so when the passage I showed in Hebrews merges them together in Christ) I decided to leave the last part of his statement alone. To go into that next statement, with the assumption of a clear divide, would cause a lot of problems when you talk about the Apostles who are all members of Israel and also the church since the statements said: not one member of Israel.

I will state it again, I disagree with the quoted statement even when making sure to not switch out any words. I do not think that statement has any Biblical Grounds, therefore I cannot let it stand, as it is talking about Redemption which is a crucial doctrine.


This is what happens when I can't sleep. I may not reply too much since we are still on vacation.

Rom 1:16 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Darrell C won't yield to Scripture. Ignore him.

 

[Darrell C]

This proves my point....you are without understanding concerning the Covenant of redemption....you have no idea.....


22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

27 Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

29 And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.

30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

This distinguishes two Ages, what came before, and what was occurring in Paul's day.

26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.



They were not called God's People...that is a primary thrust of this prophecy. That is why Paul's teaching of the twain made one is presented.

There were men of faith among both Jew and Gentile, but Israel was the distinct People of God in that Age.

What were the gentiles grafted into????
gal3
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

The only understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is on Paul's part...not Abraham's. The Gospel was a mystery, previously unknown, previously unrevealed...the Hidden and Secret wisdom of God.

The revealing of the Gospel did indeed begin in the Old Testament Prophecy, by means of Prophecy, but understanding was kept secret.

There is a point in time when we can see that the Gospel was revealed, and this through the Spirit of God sent down from Heaven, the Comforter.


Galatians 4

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Rom 1:16 KJV For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

How does this negate that the Gospel is stated many times in Scripture that it was a mystery?

Darrell C won't yield to Scripture. Ignore him.

It is actually Scripture you ignore.

Here it is again:



Romans 16:24-26

King James Version (KJV)

24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:



If you can show how this does not say that the Gospel was not revealed until the "Preaching of Christ," according to the revelation of mystery link to Strong's inserted), which mystery was kept secret (see that link as well) since the world began, but is now (Paul's day) made known to all nations for obedience to that very Gospel...


You ignore the Scripture, because it does not fit what you want to believe. It interferes with your Theology System.

The Gospel was a mystery unrevealed to men until the due time. This is just a New Testament Basic which you are stumbling over.

But I am glad, at least, that there is an awareness among those who reject this Bible Basic just how greatly it impacts our understanding of the New Testament.


God bless.