Two-peoples-and-two-meanings systems

[Interplanner]

This thread will be posted at "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy" as well.


Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.


Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:


a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc


A person needs to sort out:
1, whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and
2, where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place.

Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?


Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

 

[JerryShugart]

Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

Here Paul indeed speaks of the future of Israel as well as prophecy concerning her which will be fulfilled in the future:

"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. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:25-27).
​

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[Interplanner]

Thanks, Jerry. Paul interprets this for us with 3 emphatic nows in the verses following the quote. But even without that, a person might see that he's (Paul) talking about the prophets future, not his own. The Redeemer came and took away sins. Past tense, setting up the reasons why neither Jew nor Gentile should think it 'is all about them' anymore forever. God has now judged all and now had mercy on all in Jesus Christ.

I think if you'll look through Rom 9-11, you'll find this (historic fulfillment, not ours now) is the mentality throughout. Passage after passage is quoted as fulfilled in the Christ event--the historic Gospel. Not about something anticipated in the future.

An Ephesians 1 passage is very instructive here. The ascendancy of Christ as Lord is as true in this age as in the age to come. So we must all do a better job of unpacking what has already happened because of this.

One passage about the future by Peter is specifically to answer the question of why hasn't or why didn't more happen by the end of Peter's life (hard to tell if he was writing before or after Jerusalem's implosion), 2 Pet 3. But he can't mean the 1st coming when he talks about scoffers saying where is his coming. He must meant 2nd. So the details that follow are extremely important and there is nothing Judaic about them. What matters is that there is an allowance for a lot of time so that more people can be saved. Ie, the one place where we know for sure an apostle is speaking about doubt about the 2nd coming, there are no details mentioned about future Israel, restored temple, nothing Judaic matters to him. The new heavens and earth do.

--Inter

 

[JerryShugart]

Thanks, Jerry. Paul interprets this for us with 3 emphatic nows in the verses following the quote. But even without that, a person might see that he's (Paul) talking about the prophets future, not his own.

Interplanner,

The passage is speaking about the future of Israel:

"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. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins" (Ro.11:25-27).

​

Those words of Paul clearly contradict what you said here:

Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?

In His grace,

Jerry

 

[Clare73]

This thread will be posted at "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy" as well.


Those who believe there are two peoples of God will inevitably end up with a very different idea of "Eschatology--Endtimes & Prophecy". They see about 10,000 feet of concrete between the two, so that whatever took place at the coming of the Gospel has nothing to do with the other group of people. In fact, a full-blown restoration or return to the other group never does, or needs to, show up in Acts, in NT letters, in any of the MO of the apostles; it's "just there." It doesn't matter what NT passages say about promises to the other people, God doesn't "change," so any passage at all from the OT has to happen, no matter what the NT says.


Parallel to this is the "two meanings" of Mt 24 &//s (Mk 13, Lk 19&21). Becasue of the two peoples, it is absolutely clear to these good people that Jesus was perfectly normal in giving the most scattered of explanations. Utterly urgent warnings...for people thousands of years in the future! Why, of course. Wasn't he that schitzophrenic all through his ministry? How could I have missed it? No, I think he was completely coherent about the events that would take place in that generation, with a bit of an echo that if something would happen in the distant future it would at least copy or replicate what was described:


a pretend 'messianic' antichrist(s),
a failed messianic war for the land of Judea,
Sabbath (ie Mosaic law) police making many miserable...etc


A person needs to sort out:
1) whether the NT is the authoritative statement about the two peoples in Eph 2-3 etc (as opposed to popular prophecy teachers now), and

2) where he goes with #1 into prophecy. They don't go to the same place.

Why would the plainly stated doctrinal passages of the NT never mention anything in the future for Israel--I mean not even the slightest 'need' for any prophecy to be fulfilled--in their treatments of the promises, shape, destiny, history and conclusion of Israel's role in the arrival of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus?


Whenever I hear that 2nd century church fathers wrote about Revelation like the popular prophecy teachers of today, I have to place this beside the remark I hear all the time from 'messianic' friends: that shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, the church immersed in anti-semitism (as though the destruction of Jerusalem was the only statement by God about such things). Both cannot be true, and both have lost their grip, as far as I can tell.

--Inter

The "two peoples" is driven by several things:

1) its agreement with man's own fancy

2) its origin in Jewish apocalytic sources, revived between 160 and 250 A.D., which made its way into the Church during the third century, around 250 A.D.

It was not a teaching of the Church during the Apostolic age, ending with the year 150 A.D. (at the passing of those personally taught by the apostles). Likewise, the early Christian creeds, which were statements of apostolic teaching, do not contain a future earthly Messianic kingdom in a restoration of Israel. The Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds leave no room for it between Christ's ascension and the final judgment, nor did Christ (Mt 24:14). And the Athanasian Creed teaches final judgment and eternity at the second coming of Christ.

3) the desire of "people #1" to maintain a precedency and supercedency as God's favored people, with a special dispensation apart from and outside the Church, the bride of Christ (contrary to Jn 10:16).

4) misinterpretation of prophecy that Israel has a future apart from and outside the Church (contrary to Ro 11:15-24, esp. v.23; Heb 11:39-40, 12:22-23; Rev 21:9-14, 22:15) and

5) the insistence that unbelieving Jews who reject the NT for the OT are still God's people (contrary to Lk 10:16, 19:27; Jn 3:18b, 36; Gal 4:24-40)

This un-Biblical notion undermines Christian doctrine in several ways:

1) It shifts the focus, emphasis and purpose of God from the excellency of his plan in Christ Jesus and his body the Church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile, to the supposed excellency of his plan for a future restoration of Israel.

2) It removes Jesus from the center of God's plan for all history and time, and replaces him with Israel.

3) It sees the promise to Abraham of Ge 12:3, to be a blessing to all nations, as being fulfilled in a future restoration of Israel, rather than in the promised seed (Ge 3:15), Jesus Christ!

4) It diminishes the doctrine of Christ by captivating minds, focus, attention, interest, conversation, anticipation, orientation with a sensational future of Israel.

In practical effect, the doctrine of Christ has become a stepsister to the sensational future of Israel.

In the faith,
Clare

 

[Biblewriter]

The "two peoples" is driven by several things:

1) its agreement with man's own fancy

It fills half the Old testament.

2) its origin in Jewish apocalytic sources, revived between 160 and 250 A.D., which made its way into the Church during the third century.

It was not a teaching of the Church during the Apostolic age, ending with the year 150 A.D. (at the passing of those personally taught by the apostles).

This is simply incorrect. It was taught in the very oldest Christian writings on the subject that we know about.

Likewise, the early Christian creeds, which were statements of apostolic teaching, do not contain a future earthly Messianic kingdom in a restoration of Israel. The Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds leave no room for it between Christ's ascension and the final judgment, nor did Christ (Mt 24:14). And the Athanasian Creed teaches final judgment and eternity at the second coming of Christ.

3) the desire of "people #1" to retain precedency and supercedency as God's favored people, with a special dispensation apart from and outside the Church, the bride of Christ (contrary to Jn 10:16)

3) misinterpretation of prophecy that Israel has a future apart from and outside the Church (contrary to Ro 11:15-24, esp. v.23; Heb 11:39-40, 12:22-23; Rev 21:9-14, 22:15) and

4) the insistence that unbelieving Jews who reject the NT for the OT are still God's people (contrary to Lk 10:16, 19:27; Jn 3:18b, 36; Gal 4:24-40)

This is not taught by even one main line dispensationaist.

This un-Biblical notion undermines Christian doctrine in several ways:

1) It shifts the focus, emphasis and purpose of God from the excellency of his plan in Christ Jesus and his body the Church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile, to the supposed excellency of his plan for a future restoration of Israel.

2) It removes Jesus from the center of God's plan for all history and time, and replaces him with Israel.

This is nonsense. we see Jesus as the great deliverer iof Israel, just as He is the great deliverer of the church.

3) It sees the promise to Abraham of Ge 12:3, to be a blessing to all nations, as being fulfilled in a future restoration of Israel, rather than in the promised seed (Ge 3:15), Jesus Christ!

No, it sees the future blessing of Israel through the promise seed, which is Jesus Christ.

4) It diminishes the doctrine of Christ by captivating minds, focus, attention, interest, conversation, anticipation, orientation with a sensational future of Israel.

In practical effect, the doctrine of Christ has become a stepsister to the sensational future of Israel.

In the faith,
Clare

I would advise you to lean a little about what we teach before you try to disprove what we say.

 

[Clare73]

The "two peoples" is driven by several things:

1) its agreement with man's own fancy

It fills half the Old testament.

Hi, Biblewriter,

But we're talking about unfulfilled symbolic prophecy, right?
And that's a problem.

Nu 12:6-8 - When God was reprimanding Aaron and Miriam for criticizing Moses, he demonstrated Moses' superiority to them with the fact that when God spoke to other prophets, he spoke to them indirectly, in visions and dreams, but when he spoke to Moses, he spoke to him directly, face-to-face, and clearly, not in riddles (dark sayings, dark speeches).

But note how God describes the nature of prophecy. He gives it in riddles, to everyone but Moses.
And the track record of God's people in correctly interpreting unfulfilled symbolic prophecy given in riddles is dismal,
at best, going all the way back to Christ, where the Jews interpreted prophecy to mean he would deliver them
from Roman rule and set up an earthly kingdom. Nor has their track record improved since then.

So the problem with "two peoples" is that it is taken from a lot of unfulfilled symbolic prophecy given in riddles, which is being interpreted literally to arrive at the "two peoples."
That's a recipe for error, and why "two peoples" is not presented anywhere in the NT, and is contrary to Ro 11:23.

2) its origin in Jewish apocalytic sources, revived between 160 and 250 A.D., which made its way into writings in the Church during the third century (around 250 A.D.).

It was not a teaching of the Church during the Apostolic age, ending with the year 150 A.D. (at the passing of those personally taught by the apostles).

This is simply incorrect. It was taught in the very oldest Christian writings on the subject that we know about.

Is what I said in disagreement with that?

Likewise, the early Christian creeds, which were statements of apostolic teaching, do not contain a future earthly Messianic kingdom in a restoration of Israel. The Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds leave no room for it between Christ's ascension and the final judgment, nor did Christ (Mt 24:14). And the Athanasian Creed teaches final judgment and eternity at the second coming of Christ.

3) the desire of "people #1" to maintain precedency and supercedency as God's favored people, with a special dispensation apart from and outside the Church, the bride of Christ (contrary to Jn 10:16).

4) misinterpretation of prophecy that Israel has a future apart from and outside the Church (contrary to Ro 11:15-24, esp. v.23; Heb 11:39-40, 12:22-23; Rev 21:9-14, 22:15) and

5) the insistence that unbelieving Jews who reject the NT for the OT are still God's people (contrary to Lk 10:16, 19:27; Jn 3:18b, 36; Gal 4:24-40)

This is not taught by even one main line dispensationaist.

There are many who maintain that unbelieving Israel is God's people, apart from Christ.

This un-Biblical notion undermines Christian doctrine in several ways:

1) It shifts the focus, emphasis and purpose of God from the excellency of his plan in Christ Jesus and his body the Church, comprised of both Jew and Gentile, to the supposed excellency of his plan for a future restoration of Israel.

2) It removes Jesus from the center of God's plan for all history and time, and replaces him with Israel.

This is nonsense. we see Jesus as the great deliverer iof Israel, just as He is the great deliverer of the church.

But isn't Jesus much more to the Church in addition to the great deliverer?

God's purpose is to bring all things in creation under one head, Christ,
to sum up all things (promises, blessings, provision, graces, etc.) in Christ (Eph 1:9-10; Col 1:16; Php 4:19).

All the promises of God, no matter what they were, are contained and fulfilled in Christ (2Co 1:20);
God has shut up all promises in Christ just as he has shut up all men in sin (Ro 3:19, 11:32),

that in all things Christ may have the supremacy (Col 1:18; Rev 22:13).

Christ is head over (governs) everything for the sake of the Church (Eph 1:22, 5:23), his people (see Mic 5; Pr 13:22, 21:18; Eccl 2:26).

The Church is Christ's body (Col 1:24; 1Co 12:27; Eph 1:11-14), none of his elect are outside it.

The Church is Christ's Bride (Eph 5:25-27, 31-32; Rev 19:7-8).

The Church is Christ's fullness (completion) (Eph 1:23), for
Christ is King, and he must have a kingdom, in our hearts (Lk 17:20-21; Jn 18:36), the Church,
Christ is Bridegroom, and he must have a bride (Eph 5:25-27), the Church.

So Christ is so much more to the Church in addition to the great deliverer.

And how much of that do you hear in dispensationalism. . .and in a lot of the church today?
The doctrine of Jesus as the whole purpose and center of God's plan for all history and time is now a stepsister to the sensational future restoration of Israel.

"Restoration" in the NT is the restoration of the original creation in the new creation (Ac 3:21; Mt 17:11, 19:28 w/ 1Co 6:2-3; Eph 1:9-10), not a restoration of Israel.
Israel was restored upon their return from exile in Babylon (Ne 12:43), and is a prophetic type
of the restoration of all creation in the NT (2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15).

The "fulfillment of the ages" is in the Church (1Co 10:11), not in a future restoration of Israel.
Again, this notion removes Jesus Christ from the center of God's plan and replaces him with Israel.

3) It sees the promise to Abraham of Ge 12:3, to be a blessing to all nations, as being fulfilled in a future restoration of Israel, rather than in the promised seed (Ge 3:15), Jesus Christ!

No, it sees the future blessing of Israel through the promise seed, which is Jesus Christ.

You seem to be acquainted with a better form of dispensationalism than is held by many.

There are many who maintain that unbelieving Israel (who denies Christ) is the people of God.
They maintain unbelieving Israel are the people of God apart from Christ.

God has no people apart from Christ.
Unbelieving Israel has been cut off from the one olive tree of God's people (Ro 11:17), and will remain so if they reject Christ (Ro 11:23).
Israel is on the same footing as the rest of mankind; i.e., entry into the people of God is only by faith in Jesus Christ.

4) It diminishes the doctrine of Christ by captivating minds, focus, attention, interest, conversation, anticipation, orientation with a sensational future of Israel.

In practical effect, the doctrine of Christ has become a stepsister to the sensational future of Israel.

I would advise you to lean a little about what we teach before you try to disprove what we say.

Do you feel you have pretty good knowledge of what others believe in this regard?

In the faith,
Clare