Who are the gentiles?

[The Biblicist]

I am not sure I understand the connection of this question with Matthew 28:10 and the term "destroy"?

May I give you a word of caution? You have asked two questions and I have given you two detailed answers and you have had no response but to move to another text. Be careful not to fall into the eisgetical response that pits scripture against scripture or what I call the moving target method of response. If you cannot refute a detailed response by the context of that verse then that is a clear indication your understanding of that text is not consistent with its contextual meaning.

 

[Bob Hope]

I am not sure I understand the connection of this question with Matthew 28:10 and the term "destroy"?

The connection would be that if some died in unbielf they may be reconciled later.

 

[The Biblicist]

The connection would be that if some died in unbielf they may be reconciled later.

Individually all Jews die and when they die there is no change of their eternal destiny at death. If they were believers they continue in that state and if they are unbelievers they continue in that state.

As unbelievers their soul continues to exist in a state of spiritual separation from God and in a designated place of actual separation from heaven and all who are in heaven called hades.

Jesus told the story about Lazerus and the rich man and in no parable does Jesus ever use names (Lazerus, Abraham, Moses and the prophets, etc.). He never introduced it as a parable and never said it was a parable and there is no basis to assume it was a parable.

However, even if we give way and admit it is a parable the very usage of a parable is to convey literal truth by means of illustrations. The truth being conveyed is that there is no second chances past physical death and there are eternal consequences beyond physical death. The primary lesson is that there is conscious existence after physical death or else the whole parable is completely nonsensical.

 

[Jope]

The connection would be that if some died in unbielf they may be reconciled later.

"Israel" can refer to at least two things in scriptures:

1) Israel after the flesh (Rom. 11:7, 1Cor 10:18),
and
2) The children of the promise (Rom. 9:6-8).​

When it says "all Israel shall be saved" in Rom. 11:26, it is meaning the children of promise.

Micah 7:18 shows us that only the remnant of Israel's iniquity will be pardoned.

Matthew 7:21-23 is describing this same event.

 

[Jope]

The Bible consistently classifies all humanity into two groups - Jews and Gentiles. The Gentiles are non-Jews and the Jews are non-gentiles.

According to Galatians 3:28, there is at least one more group: Christ's Body, the Church (Eph. 3:1-6).

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).​

 

[The Biblicist]

Then how do you reconcile when Paul says all Israel will be saved? Clearly there have been many Israelites that did and do not believe.

The term "Israel" is never applied to gentiles lost or saved. When speaking of saved person it refers to elect Jews and when used in Romans 11:25-27 it contextually refers to that "Israel" which had been cut off and is later grafted back in again or ethnic Israel that will be saved at the second coming of Christ.

In Romans 9:6 the phrase IN CONTEXT refers to regenerated ethnic Israelites within the nation of Israel. The point Paul is making is that the promise to Abraham in regard to a nation from his own loins refers to twice born Israelites not once born Israelites.

 

[Jope]

The law is not contrary to grace as God is the author of both and God is not the author of confusion.

According to the "everlasting covenant" the law is written upon the heart of the believer (2 Cor. 3:3-6).

The Old Covenant (Mosaic covenant) was EXTERNAL and the problem of sin was INTERNAL and therefore the law could not grant life (Gal. 3:21-22) but the problem was not the law but our sin nature (Rom. 7:10-12). What the law could not do the Spirit of God did in regeneration (Rom. 8:1-4). Hence, the cross abolished the external administrations of the Old Covenant (Col. 2:14-16) as the Law written upon the heart is fulfilled by love (Rom. 13:6-8).

Once Christ's Body is raptured, the law of Moses will be in play (Matt. 5:17-18).

 

[The Biblicist]

According to Galatians 3:28, there is at least one more group: Christ's Body, the Church (Eph. 3:1-6).

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).​

Galatians 3:28 simply states that salvation is not conditioned upon race, gender or social status. That was true previous to the cross and that is true after the cross (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Heb. 4:2).

However, that in no way denies that God has made promises to save out of ethnic Israel a people or out of the Gentiles a people according to promises. Neither does that deny that God will in the future save "all Israel" as an ethnic nation.

 

[Jope]

Galatians 3:28 simply states that salvation is not conditioned upon race, gender or social status. That was true previous to the cross and that is true after the cross (Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 10:43; Heb. 4:2).

Galatians 3:28 states that there are three groups.

Don't believe me, then why does Paul use such distinguishing language in 1Cor. 10:32?

"Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God" (1 Cor 10:32)​

 

[Jope]

The connection would be that if some died in unbielf they may be reconciled later.

An interesting piece of Scripture is Hebrews 9:15

It shows us that by means of Christ's death, He might redeem the transgressions of those called ones under the first testament that they might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

 

[Jope]

(showing that only those called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance).

 

[The Biblicist]

Galatians 3:28 states that there are three groups.

Don't believe me, then why does Paul use such distinguishing language in 1Cor. 10:32?

"Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God" (1 Cor 10:32)​

I have no disagreement here.

 

[The Biblicist]

An interesting piece of Scripture is Hebrews 9:15

It shows us that by means of Christ's death, He might redeem the transgressions of those called ones under the first testament that they might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Remember, Abraham is given as the example "of all who are of faith" and he is pre-Mosaic. The Mosaic Covenant did not change salvation by grace through faith (Acts 10:43) previous to Moses or UNDER Moses or AFTER Moses as the same way, same gospel, same savior and same justification by faith has been since Genesis 3:15 to Revelation.

Remember, the law was "added" but not in order to save anyone but only to reveal the knowledge of sin and lead them to faith in Christ which was pictured in all the sacrifices.

 

[Jope]

Remember, Abraham is given as the example "of all who are of faith" and he is pre-Mosaic. The Mosaic Covenant did not change salvation by grace through faith (Acts 10:43) previous to Moses or UNDER Moses or AFTER Moses as the same way, same gospel, same savior and same justification by faith has been since Genesis 3:15 to Revelation.

Remember, the law was "added" but not in order to save anyone but only to reveal the knowledge of sin and lead them to faith in Christ which was pictured in all the sacrifices.

In terms of Justification, OT sacrifices could not take away sins.

Christ went and preached to the spirits in Sheol (1Pet 3:19, Psalm 16:10), so that now, "...at this time [God might declare] his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26), because "[He wanted] to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through [His forbearance]" (Rom. 3:25), as "it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (Heb. 10:4).

- The OT saints were in those, as Ecclesiastes calls it, "days of darkness" (Eccles. 11:8) until Christ went into Sheol (Psalm 16:10) and brought them out of it.​

Yet Leviticus 4:20 tells us that by that OT sin offering practice, the priest could make atonement for them, and [the sin] was forgiven them.

I have a suggestion for this, and that is that Christ is a High priest (Psalm 110:4).
Just like when Christ took some conflicting ideas in scriptures and made harmony between them by showing that those figures in scripture were actually showing it's type (Matt. 12:1-8), so I present the same.
- The High priest's practice in Leviticus 4:20 is a type of Christ (Heb. 3:1, 8:3-6, 10:1-10).
- This is why it says that the High Priest's practice could make an atonement for them (Lev. 4:20).

In terms of salvation:
Numbers 15:32-36 doesn't sound like salvation to me...
(Whether or not this man was one of the elect of Heb. 9:15 is a question I ponder).
It seems to me that righteousness was by observing the law in the old dispensation (Deut. 6:25, Luke 1:6).

"...it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us" (Deut. 6:25).

"...they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless" (Luke 1:6).​

But that things have changed now under this new dispensation of grace (Eph. 3:2, Rom. 9:30-32, 10:5-6, Gal. 4:4-5), and righteousness is now by the faith that is now manifested (Rom. 3:21).

"But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets" (Rom. 3:21).​

Let me know if you find any scriptures that conflict with this.

 

[Jope]

i have no disagreement here.

________________________________________

 

[Bob Hope]

The term "Israel" is never applied to gentiles lost or saved. When speaking of saved person it refers to elect Jews and when used in Romans 11:25-27 it contextually refers to that "Israel" which had been cut off and is later grafted back in again or ethnic Israel that will be saved at the second coming of Christ.

In Romans 9:6 the phrase IN CONTEXT refers to regenerated ethnic Israelites within the nation of Israel. The point Paul is making is that the promise to Abraham in regard to a nation from his own loins refers to twice born Israelites not once born Israelites.

Well sure it is. Look at Ezekiel 37:11-14, Ezekiel 37:23, Ezekiel 37:26

Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. (Revelation 7:14-20, *Revelation 21:3*)

3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.


So, these are different groups of Gods people? I think it becomes obvious from scripture that God certainly saves a remnant of the flesh and blood of Abraham, but the moral of the story is that Gods people are those who worship Him in SPIRIT.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well sure it is. Look at Ezekiel 37:11-14, Ezekiel 37:23, Ezekiel 37:26

Speaking of literal ethnic future Israel as in Romans 11;25-28. You are spiritualizing without any basis.

Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. (Revelation 7:14-20, *Revelation 21:3*)

Neither text refers to Israel. Rev. 7:1-9 refers to Israel while Revelation 7;14-20 speak of ALL NATIONS in contrast to Israel. Revelation 21:3 says nothing about Israel but with the new heaven and earth where such distinctions no longer exist.

 

[Bob Hope]

Speaking of literal ethnic future Israel as in Romans 11;25-28. You are spiritualizing without any basis.



Neither text refers to Israel. Rev. 7:1-9 refers to Israel while Revelation 7;14-20 speak of ALL NATIONS in contrast to Israel. Revelation 21:3 says nothing about Israel but with the new heaven and earth where such distinctions no longer exist.

Israel and the church are one in the same.

 

[The Biblicist]

Israel and the church are one in the same.

No they are not! You cannot find the word "church" in Romans 9-11 where Paul deals with the promises and futrue of Israel - not one word! It is the word "gentiles" who are contrasted with "Israel" in Romans 9-11.

 

[Bob Hope]

No they are not! You cannot find the word "church" in Romans 9-11 where Paul deals with the promises and futrue of Israel - not one word! It is the word "gentiles" who are contrasted with "Israel" in Romans 9-11.

Was Paul a gentile? Wasn't Paul apart of the Church?