did Jesus come to save all of humanity or did He just come for the jews ?

[hedrick]

The relationship between Christianity and Israel is difficult and there are a number of different approaches as you’re seeing here.

Jer 31:31, which you quoted, speaks of a new covenant but for Israel, so it was a new covenant but not a new Israel. Various prophets speak of all nations coming to worship in Jerusalem (e.g. Zech 14:16), but they don’t become part of Israel. As far as I can tell, the Gospels continue this.

This doesn’t mean that Jesus is only for Israel, however. Yes, Jesus’ own ministry was to Israel (Mat 15:24). But in the Great Commission he tells the disciples that they are to go throughout the nations. “The nations” is standard Biblical terminology for people outside Israel. There are parallels in Mark 16:14 (“all the world”), Luke 24:47 (“all nations”) and Acts 2. (The point of the story of Pentecost is that the Spirit reached out to people of all nations and languages.)

Paul speaks of God’s people as an olive tree, with the Gentiles grafted in. Many people see that as saying that Gentiles are incorporated into Israel. In a sense I agree with this. (In fact, until I did the preparation for this posting I believe I said that.) However it doesn’t seem that Paul normally uses this language. In Rom 11:11-12, when he’s talking about this he refers to incorporation of Gentiles into God’s people, but still distinguishes Israel and Gentiles. Looking throughout Paul's letters, as far as I can tell, Israel always refers to the Jewish people. (The only possible exception I see is Gal 6:16, though I think that's ambiguous.)

In summary, the Gospels, Acts, and Paul all say that the Gospel is for all people. But I think the usual Biblical terminology is to use Israel primarily for the Jewish people, and to speak of incorporation of all nations into God’s people.

 

[zippy2]

The relationship between Christianity and Israel is difficult and there are a number of different approaches as you’re seeing here.

Jer 31:31, which you quoted, speaks of a new covenant but for Israel, so it was a new covenant but not a new Israel. Various prophets speak of all nations coming to worship in Jerusalem (e.g. Zech 14:16), but they don’t become part of Israel. As far as I can tell, the Gospels continue this.

This doesn’t mean that Jesus is only for Israel, however. Yes, Jesus’ own ministry was to Israel (Mat 15:24). But in the Great Commission he tells the disciples that they are to go throughout the nations. “The nations” is standard Biblical terminology for people outside Israel. There are parallels in Mark 16:14 (“all the world”), Luke 24:47 (“all nations”) and Acts 2. (The point of the story of Pentecost is that the Spirit reached out to people of all nations and languages.)

Paul speaks of God’s people as an olive tree, with the Gentiles grafted in. Many people see that as saying that Gentiles are incorporated into Israel. In a sense I agree with this. However it doesn’t seem that Paul normally uses this language. In Rom 11:11-12, when he’s talking about this he refers to incorporation of Gentiles into God’s people, but still distinguishes Israel and Gentiles. Looking throughout Paul's letters, as far as I can tell, Israel always refers to the Jewish people. (The only possible exception I see is Gal 6:16, though I think that's ambiguous.)

In summary, the Gospels, Acts, and Paul all say that the Gospel is for all people. But I think the usual Biblical terminology is to use Israel primarily for the Jewish people, and to speak of incorporation of all nations into God’s people.

But when it says 'until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in' what do you think that means? Is it a number; is it a maturity level or something else? I have long wondered this. What is your opinion?

 

[hedrick]

The OP may not know this, but one reason this is a touchy topic is because Christians have often said that the Church replaces Israel, in the sense that (non-Christian) Jews are no longer part of God’s people. During the last 100 years, in part as a response to the Holocaust, both Catholic theology and the theology of many Protestants has been clarified to remove or qualify this implication.

 

[hedrick]

But when it says 'until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in' what do you think that means? Is it a number; is it a maturity level or something else? I have long wondered this. What is your opinion?

I’m not sure Paul had a specific definition here. The point was that God had held up the final salvation of Israel to provide a chance to bring in Gentiles. The fulness of the Gentiles would be all the Gentiles that God planned to include. I don’t think any specific knowledge of his plan is implied.

 

[zippy2]

The OP may not know this, but one reason this is a touchy topic is because Christians have often said that the Church replaces Israel, in the sense that (non-Christian) Jews are no longer part of God’s people. During the last 100 years, in part as a response to the Holocaust, both Catholic theology and the theology of many Protestants has been clarified to remove or qualify this implication.

But Scripture states they have been blinded. I've never understood replacement theology because of that.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Israel is all believers according to many passages; these usually come to mind first:

Romans 9:6-12:
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

But this is not the forum nor the thread to debate this is it? If it is ok I will post more of my doctrine on who is Israel.

 

[zippy2]

I’m not sure Paul had a specific definition here. The point was that God had held up the final salvation of Israel to provide a chance to bring in Gentiles. The fulness of the Gentiles would be all the Gentiles that God planned to include. I don’t think any specific knowledge of his plan is implied.

Perhaps you are right, but I don't understand why the word 'fullness' then. Thanks for your opinion.

 

[hedrick]

But Scripture states they have been blinded. I've never understood replacement theology because of that.

Indeed. But God never backs out of his decisions, so blindness doesn't change the fact that they're God's chosen. That doesn't necessarily imply salvation of every one, however. That's a separate discussion that we probably shouldn't get into unless the OP is interested.

 

[zippy2]

Israel is all believers according to many passages; these usually come to mind first:

Romans 9:6-12:
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”

But this is not the forum nor the thread to debate this is it? If it is ok I will post more of my doctrine on who is Israel.

It is obvious that the 'Israel' spoken of in the 'blindness' passages speak of the nation of Israel....the Jews in this case.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

It is obvious that the 'Israel' spoken of in the 'blindness' passages speak of the nation of Israel....the Jews in this case.

Don't know if one should post here or not, but to be brief...not all Jews or formerly Israelites were blind.

 

[zippy2]

Don't know if one should post here or not, but to be brief...not all Jews or formerly Israelites were blind.

No of course not. The Apostles themselves were Jews as were the first followers.

 

[zippy2]

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

This proves not all Israel was blinded.

 

[oi_antz]

Why do you Christians believe the New Covenant is one made between God and all people through Jesus Christ as the mediator and believe forgiveness has to be earned in some way (either through repentance, by faith, or by good works depending on the denomination)?

Hebrews chapters 9 and 10 contain a lot of thought and explanation about this. The bits that stand out is Hebrews 10:11-14, Hebrews 10:26-29, Hebrews 9:14.

Take a close look at Hebrews 9:14

How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!

Notice that St. Paul is making this statement, that acting against our conscience leads to death. He is saying that putting our faith in Jesus Christ means that we serve the living God, and in doing service for Him with clear conscience, we do not feel condemned by our fellow religious, because we know that our approval comes from God.

Notice why it is now so much more effective than it was under the old covenant, is because now that Jesus Christ's blood is spilled, it is not so easy to say that any sin we commit can be atoned for by another sacrifice. St Paul writes:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

Not a single person who truly loves God will decide to deliberately go on sinning once they come to the full knowledge of this truth. In case you feel accused by this, you might consider Luke 12:47-48, Ezekiel 33:1-6, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:17. All He wants is for us to successfully exercise the discipline of His ways, and He is willing to be patient with us while we are actively learning how.

And you guys believe in the authority of clergy to teach about God - but God says in this new covenant that no one will have to teach about him because he will personally tell all the Jews himself .

so any help and understanding regarding this question would be greatly appreciated thank you all

Consider what Jesus says in Matthew 21:43

"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it."

.. you should read that whole parable too. Remember, if we keep on seeking then we will find, and if we keep on knocking then the door will be opened to us. Jesus said in John 4:23 that the hour had come when The Father would seek out those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth.

 

[Open Heart]

To tell someone what Christians believe by taking the largest denomination believe is quite short sighted because Protestants believe so differently from Catholicism.

It is far more honest to refer to Catholic belief when answering the question of what Christians believe, than to refer to what Protestants believe (sola scriptura, sola fide) which Protestants do all the time.

 

[Open Heart]

The Jews still rejected the Son of God

BECAUSE God himself has blinded them so that Gentiles could receive the Gospel.

Not that Israel deserves it.

NO ONE deserves it.

 

[Open Heart]

Well, it's not "the bulk" and it's not "by far," either....but if you count hundreds of millions who never attend church but were baptized in a Roman Catholic church once upon a time, I suppose.

Oh come, come. The statistics count nominal Protestants as well.

 

[Albion]

Oh come, come. The statistics count nominal Protestants as well.

Actually, no. That is far less the case with Protestants than it is with the RCC.

Most Protestant denominations count only adults or voters in their congregations and few churches will keep reporting a member if he's failed to participate for a couple of years. By contrast, countries like Italy and Brazil are reported as overwhelmingly Roman Catholic even though the people involved may belong to anther denomination now or simply have no connection to any particular church.

 

[hedrick]

It’s worth noting that Paul said Israel had been *temporarily* blinded to provide an opportunity for Gentiles. But God hasn’t gone back on his commitment to Israel. His plan was that all of Israel would be saved.

It’s ambiguous just how that applies to Jews today. Did he mean that at the end of time, all of Israel would be saved, but at the moment only a remnant is saved? That’s a possible reading, but I don’t think it’s the only one, and it seems contrary to his overall position.

This is tied up with the question of inclusivism. Do you think that in order to be saved you must be visible members of the Catholic Church (Catholic) or have explicit faith in Christ (Protestant)? That’s been the traditional position. That would exclude Jews who aren’t also Christians.

However the Catholic position, and the position of many Protestants, is more flexible today. Catholics believe it is possible for non-Christians to have a spiritual connection with the Church. Many Protestants believe it is possible to respond to God without understanding that this connects you to Christ. This kind of position allows us to understand Paul’s belief that God has not abandoned Israel as applying to today’s Israel.

 

[ToBeLoved]

But when it says 'until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in' what do you think that means? Is it a number; is it a maturity level or something else? I have long wondered this. What is your opinion?

I think it has more to do with the gospel being preached to every person in every nation. That's my take anyway.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Oh come, come. The statistics count nominal Protestants as well.

It's still a severely short sighted view. To only count the largest group.