Body of Christ (Church) vs. Israel

[mishkan]

Who said I heard that from a "sensationalist teacher" though ? I looked it up myself .

OK. Maybe you are one of the few who didn't get this idea from a YouTube vid.

There is also an old saying I like to take to heart--"He who is self-taught is taught by an ignorant teacher, indeed."

 

[mishkan]

one can consider where he has taught his Israelology course for Chafer Theological Seminary...recorded at West Houston Bible Church in Texas.

• Israelology – Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum – Recorded at Chafer Theological Seminary

The venue tells you the premise... and the conclusion.

Lewis Sperry Chafer is a leading light of dispensational theology. One of the key inviolable foundation principles of dispensationalism is "never confound Israel and the Church".

 

[Ashlantal]

Why would you even think to put "vs" between these two terms. One is for a nation, and the other is for a faith.

It was just a title to draw posters .

 

[visionary]

It was just a title to draw posters .

controversial title draws posters.. gotcha...

 

[Ashlantal]

OK. Maybe you are one of the few who didn't get this idea from a YouTube vid.

There is also an old saying I like to take to heart--"He who is self-taught is taught by an ignorant teacher, indeed."

Thank you .

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The venue tells you the premise... and the conclusion.

Lewis Sperry Chafer is a leading light of dispensational theology. One of the key inviolable foundation principles of dispensationalism is "never confound Israel and the Church".

Venue alone wouldn't be necessary for figuring out any type of premise - seeing that which is dispensational is something Arnold/Ariel Ministries has never kept hidden (as noted earlier in the post I mentioned him on)...and he alongside others have often addressed some of the stereotypes/caricatures of dispensational thought that don't really reflect things as they are.

Of course, the venue isn't something one should look to always for determination as a rule since you've had others share in places which are opposite of their perspective but they shared for the purposes of building relationship/fellowship and sharing differences of thought - like Orthodox Rabbis who work in speaking at Churches when it comes to interfaith dialouge (and many wondering "Why is the rabbi in an Anglican church? He must have leanings there.." ).

Not everyone will agree - as all, in seeking to honor the Hebrews/Jewish people as they are, will be on a different path of understanding and a differing journey. It is already understood that there are others who cannot agree to the concept of the Church and Israel having differing communities and differing developments in the Lord - even though both have common unity in the Lord as His people. For others, it's a matter of not seeking to substantiatewhat they view as a non-Israel community called, "the Church" - and instead having what they feel is an Israel-centric focus (more discussed in previous threads).

For others, it's a complicated matter where Israel has many varying levels of identification (more discussed here ) - and I've shared my own thoughts on the issue more in-depth elsewhere (as seen in #44 , #76 ,#77 , #129 #229, #250, #259 and #463 ) - as I hold to the stance that Messianic Judaism is One House (not to be confussed or misconstrued with One Law where there are no distinctions), as it states both Jew and Gentile are ONE in the house of God per Ephesians 2-3 and other texts - and yet there remain clear distinctions consistent with what the OT said. No different than what occurred with empires/commonwealths - such as Puerto Rico being a self-governing commonwealth in association with the United States (even though they voted for Statehood this year ) and Jamaica (part of my ethnic heritage) being a Commonwealth realm with Elizabeth II as Queen of Jamaica - with many Jamaicans learning the language of Britain and even moving to England, as one of my uncles (Uncle Locksly) - speaking the Queen's English fluently as much as he'd speak Jamaican Patois.

With Israel, Gentiles are a part of the CommonWealth of Israel/recieve promises via that and the Messiah - even though Jewish followers of Yeshua/God the Father are Israel as He sees it and have a unique calling - and their calling as Remnant Israel/His Beloved is not the same as PHYSICAL Israel which is unsaved/against the Lord (very much like it was when you had the prophets in Israel persecuted by others in Israel - all of it done IN THE NAME of Israel....and yet those prophets/righteous priests, from Jeremiah to Elisha to Elijah to Hosea and many others would universally speak on what it meant to be God's people and denoucne the physical state as not truly representing Israel as the Lord intended).

I side with those noting how the Remnant of Israel (if speaking contexually of seeing Israel related to Jewish people) is the Israel God supports - with them doing outreach amongst those in Physical Israel which rejects the Messiah (like Paul noted in Galatians 4:24-26 /Galatians 4 when it came to noting that the physical Jerusalem of His day was in slavery/representative of those who did not have the Promise because they rejected Yeshua - whereas the Jerusalem he/other Messianic Jews looked forward to was the Heavenly one the Lord would bring down/establish).

With this comes the understanding of how the Remnant Israel is also synomous with the Church - the Universal Body of Christ - and Remnant Israel can be seen as a branch of the Universal Church/Israel of God (Jew and Gentile together) that reaches out to the unsaved people of Israel. Often people make it seem that the Church and Israel HAVE to be seen seperately - and that is something I disagree with....and one of the reasons why I don't support Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum on all of the things he has said.

I can understand the logic behind why he shares as he does - and to a degree, it's simply his best guess just as we are all processing...so I don't have issue recommending it or finding merit since I understand his desire to combat Replacement Theology as other Messianic Jews.

But personally, I think there's nothing problematic in saying that Israel/Church were not always meant to be seen as seperate. The early Jewish body of believers had no issue referring to their meetings as "church" (just as they said it was an ecclesia/gatherings ) - and they often noted that the Gentiles living amongst them and desiring to live as them were also apart of Israel - and yet they'd say that Gentiles in the Diaspora who served the Lord where they were at were also apart of Israel.

On another post, I mentioned that Jewish people are taught to use "we" and "us" - and in the New Covenant, believing Jews and Gentiles become one people, but often what is missing is the view of "we" and "us" rather then "us" and "them" .The "us" and "them" usage of language does make a world of difference - especially as it concerns the Body of Messiah/Israel of God. Was just talking with this with other Messianics the other night at fellowship when it came to noting what it meant to be a part of the One Redeemed People and not seeing Israel as a body seperate from God's One People - but rather seeing Israel as having many differing people altogether, with the Hebrews/Israelities of natural descent being different from the Gentiles grafted onto Israel/becoming part of the COmmonWealth of Israel - both relating differently to the Lord.....and within that, even having sub-categories (just like the Mosaic code had) for groups in the Gentile world, with even the Gentiles who have a calling to identify with the Hebrews as Ruth did being different from those Gentiles more so in the line of God Fearers/remaining within their own cultures as followers of God..or being strangers/sojourners in the land who differed from those wishing to be like Israel at all points.

We are indeed a Body - and like a body with multiple parts/differing organs having differing functions, so it is with Jews and Gentiles within the One Body of Messiah/His ISrael (Remnant Israel).....all of that distinct from the physical Israeli State/Israelites who do not believe in Yeshua.

More shared elsewhere on the issue for reference:

Is it possible for a Christian or a church to have the Messianic belief that Israel does a significant role in God's plan of restoration which in my opinion is a core belief in Messianic Judaism. In other words even though Messianic Jewish synagogue's have Jews and Gentiles together in this belief is it possible for Christians to share in this belief?

I think that the question itself takes on a differing dimension when seeing what actually happens in the Israeli state...as it concerns the Messianic Jews persecuted by the government/other Jewish communities and those same Messianic Jews working with Gentiles (i.e. Arab/Palestinian believers in Christ, Indian believers, American Missionaries, etc), with the Messianic Jews there living out their Jewish heritage and love for Yeshua while also praying for their Jewish brothers/sisters who don't know the Lord. To them, those who are apart of the Jewish community in Christ, wherever it exists, are Israel...the Remannt. They pray for the non-believing Jews to come into Jewish believing communities, although their stances are not that the Jewish community deemed to be "Israel Remnant" is only those apart of Jewish communities that are based in synagouge dynamics. Whether you're a Jewish believer attending a Messianic synagouge in the U.S or Israel...or whether you're a Jewish believer in the Anglican or Baptist church, if you're in Christ, you're apart of Israel...as many have come to see it. For the Lord's body is not limited to one Location---and wherever Jewish believers come into existence and are seeking to evangelize other Jews to become apart of the Lord's work, that is where Israel will be established. This has been a real issue for Jews who enjoy Messianic Judaism...and yet get perturbed by other Gentiles saying that Jews not involved in the Messianic Jewish movement as they see it are not truly apart of "Israel" or cool with the Lord....and for others, what they often feel is that others simply need to get their passport and move to Israel itself in order to truly be "Israel" if they feel all Jewish believers apart of Israel must be focused on going there.

This does not mean that Gentiles are not important or that they're second class--for together with Jews, Gentiles do make up one new body and are used of the Lord.....but Israel itself is seen by many to be the Covenants fulfilled solely for Jewish believers in Messiah, much in the same way that believers all around the world will serve the Lord even though not all will necessarily be apart of what the Lord does in Jewish communities since that is unique to them and the Lord never desired (as some see it ) for their to be uniformity when every tribe, tongue and nation glorified Him

I'm surprised that many people in Church do not realise that the greatest preacher in history* only ever preached in a synagogue, and never once stepped into a pulpit or entered a Church!

*In case you are wondering it is Yeshua

There's the reality of how Christ not entering a Church as many see it today would still need to be considered within the context of how the idea of churches was different..and yet present within the early Jewish community (alongside Gentile Churches where the Gospel was contexualized in their frameworks , Romans 16:3-5 ), as it pertains to the ecclesia/local bodies (Acts 8:1-3 , Acts 9:30-32, Acts 15:40-41, Acts 16:4-6, Romans 16:15-17, 1 Corinthians 7:16-18, 1 Corinthians 11:15-17 , 1 Corinthians 14:32-34 , 1 Corinthians 16:18-20, 2 Corinthians 8:17-19 , Galatians 1:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 2:13-15, Revelation 1:3-5 , Revelation 22:15-17, etc ) and the issue of where Yeshua proclaimed how He would establish His Church upon the apostles ( Matthew 16:17-19, Matthew 18:16-18 )

... although synagouges themselves were useful as places of fellowship/community, the system itself was set up during a time when sacrifices could not be made at the Temple during the Exile. It was a system developed in order to create something that'd help give a semblance of order.....and had the temple remained/the people of Israel and Judah were not punished, the synagouge concept would possibly have not come into existence. For models of community apart from the Synagouge model were the Temple Model and the Tabernacle model that was first given in the Mosaic Law (Exodus 25-36, Exodus 38 , Exodus 39, Exodus 40, Leviticus 8, Leviticus 17 , Numbers 1:52-54 /Numbers 1 , Numbers 3 , Numbers 4, Numbers 9 , Numbers 10 , Numbers 16:8-10 , Numbers 19:12-14 )...one where much travel was involved.

 

[Qnts2]

Even then a Gentile is still a heathen . Israel is not just any nation , it is set apart, unique . It is a nation chosen and ordained by God himself .

Heathens are people that do not believe in the God of Israel . Therefore a heathen is a Gentile .

Goy means nation. In scripture a nation is a people group, not a country. The children of Israel is one people group, the Egyptians are another people group. It does not matter if they are living in the land given to them or not. Gentile means not Jewish. There is no Hebrew word in scripture equivalent to 'a nation which is not Israel' so one must surmise it from the context of the text, the Goy is referring to a nation other then the nation of Israel.

So, as a member of a nation/goy, each individual must choose whom they will serve. That means there are righteous people who are not Jewish, and since Gentile simply means not Jewish, there are righteous Gentiles.

On the other hand, Israel is a chosen nation, but the not all individuals who are members of the nation of Israel, have been righteous. So there are unrighteous members of Israel and righteous Gentiles/non-Jews.

 

[Qnts2]

Who said I heard that from a "sensationalist teacher" though ? I looked it up myself .

To interpret Gentile as meaning Heathen is a somewhat common error, unfortunately. Especially among various Hebrew roots groups.

Gentile simply means 'not Jewish', and I happen to know quite a few people who are not Jewish who are also not heathens.

From the Mirriam Webster dictionary:

1
often capitalized : a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially : a Christian as distinguished from a Jew


Now, the error made by Mirriam Webster is the assumption that 'Jew' means a religion. Christian is a religion, but Jew is not a religion. A Jew is a decendent of Jacob/Israel. The most common religion of the Jews is Judaism, but Jewish people can also be believers in Yeshua, Buddhist, atheists etc.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Check out this video

Grafted In - YouTube

Personally, after talking with a lot of other Messianic Jews, I can see why the concept of a Spiritual Israel has merit...as opposed to believing Israel always is about being physical. It's why (IMHO) Paul (when speaking to the Gentile audience in Galatians) noted "Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule—to the Israel of God" ( Galatians 6:15-17 ). It seems clear that in this verse Paul cannot be pronouncing a benediction upon persons who are not included in the phrase "as many as shall walk by this rule" (the rule of boasting only in the cross which he discussed earlier). The entire argument of the epistle prevents any idea that here in 6:16 he would give a blessing to those who are not included in this group.

In many of the traditional stances, "Israel" is often interpreted typologically. The Church is understood to be a "Spiritual Israel," so that many things said in connection with Israel in Scripture are applied to the Church. For instance, the words of Psalm 122, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee," are understood as in Matthew Henry's commentary: "The peace and welfare of the gospel church ... is to be earnestly desired and prayed for." This is in keeping with the method of the apostles, as for instance in Galatians 4:26, where the apostle Paul speaks of "the Jerusalem that is above" when also speaking on the Jerusalem that is below/earthly and in bondage. ..Thus, when Paul speaks of "the Israel of God" in 6:16, the meaning of this expression is readily grasped. Rather than seeing a contrast, a deeply meaningful typological relationship is perceived.

For many saying the Church is never called "Israel" in any sense when seeing scripture and it is said that "all is contrast" between the two, then in what sense can Christians of Jewish background be called "Israel" any longer, if they are in the Church? If someone in the Church is being called "Israel," then the all-important distinction between Israel and the Church has been breached. If it is said that people of Jewish background may still be called "Israel" after they have become Christians, then it must be admitted that the strict terminological distinction between "Israel" and "the Church" has broken down at this point.

Further, if it is said that only persons of Jewish backgound can be so called, then we may rightly ask if we have a separate class of "Jewish Christians"/Jewish disciples who alone are entitled to the name "Israel of God"? If so, what is the significance of this?



Again, IMHO, it doesn't seem that difficult in noting how assuming from Galatians 6 that Paul speaking of "Israel of God" to the carnal sons of Judah not saved as opposed to Jews/Gentiles betrays a fundamentally wrong approach to biblical interpretation, and to New Testament theology in particular. Paul adds the words "upon the Israel of God" and therefore peace is upon Gentiles and Jews, provided that they go by the rule of faith and the Spirit.

Obviously there are those who think the Church is Israel and confuse the two entities. ...specifically when assuming that all Gentiles must be physical descendants of Israel if they're to be legitimate (like many in Two House Circles do when it comes to their interpretation of Israel/the Church being the same).

From a physical standpoint, Literally Israel, of the children of Israel, are physical descendants of Israel (aka Jacob). Jacob was renamed Israel and the descendents of Jacob are called the children of Israel. Gentile believers OVERALL are never said to be sons of Jacob or sons of Israel in that sense - even though many Gentiles may have Jacob ancestry due to other Hebrews who experienced Diaspora in the Gentile world...and later, assimilation and cultural diffusion - many times due to having to hide identities. For many Gentile believers, rediscovering their roots and seeing where they may be possible connections to a literal Israel ancestry is the root behind saying they as Gentiles are Israel.

But within scripture, the term often used to describe Gentile believers are "sons of Abraham". Some say that this is significant due to the argument that scripture doesn't seem to say that Gentiles are deemed "sons of Jacob" - and therefore, they conclude that Gentile believers universally are not physical sons of Abraham but are 'Spiritual sons of Abraham' and not Spiritual sons of Jacob/Israel.

On that, personally, I think there can be many times where there is a bit of a false scenario that gets developed when it comes to the argument that the Children of Abraham isn't the same as the Children of Jacob---and the only reason that's noted is due to the many times where a dual reality was present within the scriptures.

Multiple times it was the case that scripture noted the physical descendants of Jacob (later called Israel per Genesis 32:28) as Israelities.....and yet, on the same token, their being "Israelities" was not seperate from being called "Children of Abraham" since the terms were often used altogether---with being of "Israel" meaning one was of the larger root which was Abraham.


In the geneology of the nation of Israel, Abraham is the father of the nation by way of Isaac and then Isaac's son Jacob. ..and the descendents of Jacob, his twelve sons who migrated to Egypt were called the sons of Israel (Exodus 4)...making it the case that Abraham's great-great grandchildren were called the children of Israel (Jacob) even though it wasn't as if Jacob was seperate from Abraham when it came to the identity of the children. For the term "Israel" came to mean all of Abraham's descendants just as much as it meant Jacobs...

Literally, a child of Abraham is one who is a physical descenant---but that doesn't mean that one is automatically a SPIRITUAL descendant of Abraham since that was something that dealt with lifestyle and heart.

The same thing applied even to the Israelites when the Lord often rebuked them in saying they were Israelites in the physical sense only....but the spiritual was lacking and others were walking that out. That concept goes directly in line with the theme Paul/CHRIST often brings up when noting how what it means to be a "Son of Abraham" (just as it is with a Son of Israel) are often dual realities:

Matthew 3:9
And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Matthew 3:8-10


Luke 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.
Luke 3:7-9

John 8:39
“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did.
John 8:38-40


Romans 9:8
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.
Romans 9:7-9

Galatians 3:7
Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham.
Galatians 3:6-8

​

Of course (thankfully), none of this means that all Gentiles can begin doing what occurs in many circles and assuming they are "Israel" in the GREATEST sense and begin acting as if Jews/Gentiles have the same destiny. The end is and always will be Christ---but the means of travel/journey are different...and for those who are both PHYSICAL and SPIRITUAL descendants of ABraham/Jacob (Israel), they are connected with the current Israel that is not saved and in need of evangelism/redeemption in Christ and the Israel that had certain requirements given to them as a part of their heritage. That's not the same as what occurs with the Spiritual Israel made of Jews/Gentiles that is seperate from the literal physical Israel of today.

Things are radically different many times within the world of Messianic Judaism abroad - but on this forum, the term church carries a different connotation connected to the method of practice. Some view the term "Church", with the capitol to comprise all born again believers and the term "church" with the organizational structure like denominations or simply the building. Since the term is confusing for others, the preference for many is to use the Ecclesia, to me meaning all born again believers.​

I can understand why the term Ecclesia is used as opposed to church. Personally, as it was used often by Christ and the apostles, I don't take issue with it since it must be used in the context it was used in.​

The idea of Churches/church was different then in regards to how many see Church today...with there being no issue for Jewish believers using the term to describe themselves/the early Jewish community (alongside Gentile Churches where the Gospel was contexualized in their frameworks , Romans 16:3-5 ), as it pertains to the ecclesia/local bodies (Acts 8:1-3 , Acts 9:30-32, Acts 15:40-41, Acts 16:4-6, Romans 16:15-17, 1 Corinthians 7:16-18, 1 Corinthians 11:15-17 , 1 Corinthians 14:32-34 , 1 Corinthians 16:18-20, 2 Corinthians 8:17-19 , Galatians 1:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 2:13-15, Revelation 1:3-5 , Revelation 22:15-17, etc ) and the issue of where Yeshua proclaimed how He would establish His Church upon the apostles ( Matthew 16:17-19, Matthew 18:16-18 )....​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Check out this video

Grafted In - YouTube

When it comes to understanding that Israel today is not all born again - as some are while most aren't - I think it should be noted that there've been many Messianic Jews noting how others in Israel often don't act like the Israel the Lord intended....and personally, I'd go so far as to say that to BE an Israelite, would be for one to make the claim, and then LIVE as an Israelite.

In other words, I could claim to be an astronaut. but until I walked the walk as well as talked the talk, I really wouldn' be one as fully intended. But if I DID walk the walk, as well as talked the talk, would I not be considered to be an astronaut (insert any other profession/adjective you like). I say that in light of how often Jesus spoke of Gentiles having far grander faith than all others in Israel, such as seen in Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13...

I'm also reminded of the Rechabites that God praised over Judah when the nation was in sin. They were the descendants of Rechab through Jonadab or Jehonadab. Jeremiah 35:6 mentions Jonadab...and with Jonadab (Jehonadab), son of Rechab, he had joined Jehu in purging the Northern Kingdom of Baal Worship (II Kings 10:15-28).

The Rechabites belonged to the Kenites who accompanied the children of Israel into the holy land, and dwelt among them ( Numbers 24:20-22 , Numbers 24:21-23 ). Apparently, the Kenities were also descendants of Hobab, Moses's Brother-in-law ( Judges 4:10-12 ), and one who was of Midian---the Land Moses fled to when on the run from the Egyptians. Hobab had children with Jael, the woman who killed Sisera, being one of them since Jael was the wife of "Heber the Kenite ( Judges 4:17 ). Saul was known for having mercy upon them when destroying the Amalekites, as seen in 1 Samuel 15:5-7. There's also reference to them in Genesis 15:18-20, when Abraham made a covenant with God and the Lord said he'd give to his descendants the land of the Kenites. Moses married a Kenite wife ( Judges 1:16 ) later in life. Jehonadab forbade his descendants to drink wine or to live in cities, as seen in Jeremiah 35: 14.

Their code of conduct resembled that of the Nazarites, who took a special vow of dedication to God (Numbers 6). For 200yrs, they had obeyed their ancestors' vow to abstain from wine....and while the rest of the nation was breaking its covenant with God, these people were steadfast in their commitment. As seen in Jeremiah 35, there was a vivid contrast between the Rechabites and the other Israelites, for they kept their vows to a fallible human leader...whereas Israel broke their covenant with their infallible Divine Leader. Jonadab told his family one time not to drink and they obeyed, yet God commanded Israel constantly to turn from sin and they refused.

The Rechabities obeyed laws that dealt with temporal issues...yet Israel refused to obey God's laws that dealt with eternal issues. The Rechabites obeyed laws for hunderds of years, whereas Israel had disobeyed for Hundreds of years......and as Jeremiah 35 makes clear, God would reward the Rechabities for their devotion whle Israel would be punished. As they were noted for their fidelity to the old-established custom of their family in the days of Jeremiah, this feature of their character is referred to by God for the purpose of giving point to his message to Judah.

The Rechabities are also mentioned in Neh. 3:14 and 1 Chr. 2:55.

With the Astronaut analogy, the same can be said of another analogy used in the hood. Many talk about knowing the streets/being "Gangsta"...but until you've LIVED it, its all show

As said earlier, the very concept of "Israel" is a very complicated realitiy...and anyone being honest with the scriptures (IMHO) would have to acknowledge that Israel today is not all born again. Some are. Most aren't - and that's said in regards to the physical descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob today who reject the Messiah.

It is because of this that many other Messianics have felt it necessary to understand that speaking in terms of "Israel" is not simply a matter of referring to one group above the others - for it can either mean those who faithfully serve Messiah or those who reject him and still need to come to him...and in the case of the latter group, Israel would not be part of the Ecclesia, although some members of Israel are also members of the Ecclesia The conversation you involve yourself in will often determine the context - and nuances of conversation so that things can connect/flow easier.

With the part of Israel that is specifically in regards to Gentiles, it is a matter of the Ecclesia being brought near to the commonwealth of Israel. What did commonwealth mean? It is simply the wealth of the state held in common. What is the wealth of Israel? The promise of the Messiah. Israel was promised the Messiah, but one of the so called mysteries revealed in the NT is that Gentiles (not Israel or not Jewish), share in that wealth and are equal partakers of the blessings of the Messiah. Becoming (spiritual) sons of Abraham, sons of God by adoption.​

We know that the ekklesia – the community of those saved by trusting in Moshiach - is made up of Jew and Gentile (Colossians 3:11):

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
​

Whilst we know the Jews who believe in Yeshua belong to the House of Israel, what of the Gentiles? We know that Messianic Jews are both physically and spiritually descendants of Abraham..but what of those who are not physical descendants of Abraham? Although they're not in a physical sense related, they are related in the spiritual sense.

We read in Romans 4:9-12:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
​

In other words, all believers in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua haMashiach are bnei Avraham - sons of Abraham – through emuna (faith). This is the special role of Gentiles within the Messianic movement: to fully live lives which show that following Abraham’s walk is only possible by knowing Yeshua – for Jews and Gentiles alike. Bnei Avraham are encouraged to share their physical blessings with Jews, as the bnei Avraham share in the Jews’ spiritual blessings (Romans 15:27). Indeed, if you read Romans 11, you see how God intended the bnei Avraham – Jewish and Gentile followers of Yeshua – to complement each other in a chain reaction leading to the full and final geula: the redemption of the world.

Romans 11:13-16
I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Even then a Gentile is still a heathen . Israel is not just any nation , it is set apart, unique . It is a nation chosen and ordained by God himself .

Heathens are people that do not believe in the God of Israel . Therefore a heathen is a Gentile .

To interpret Gentile as meaning Heathen is a somewhat common error, unfortunately. Especially among various Hebrew roots groups.

Gentile simply means 'not Jewish', and I happen to know quite a few people who are not Jewish who are also not heathens.

If I may say,

Some of the logic you're using can be akin to saying "All Nazi's were Germans - therefore all Germans are Nazis"...which is not true and can be a matter of overgeneralizing due to starting from one specific group and expanding it to all other categories without warrarnt. It is in line with what's known as Affirming the Consequent - reversing an argument, or putting the cart before the horse, meaning reversing or confusing the general category with the specific/sub-category. In this line of reasoning, the premises/reasons are actually correct or valid...butthe error is found between the premises and conclusion.

Fallacy Ex:
Premise: Ducks are birds.
Premise: Ducks swim in the water.
Premise: Chickens are birds.
False Conclusion: Chickens swim in the water.
(Affirming The Consequent Fallacy: not all birds swim in water; swimming is neither a necessary or sufficient condition to be the thing "bird")
​

The same thing goes for the "Heathen/Gentile" dynamic. Correlation does not equal causation -and just because there were Heathens who happened to be Gentile doesn't mean that all Gentiles are automatically heathens - nor does it mean that others acted heathens BECAUSE they were Gentiles. There were many Israelites whom the Lord equated to being not of Him in how they lived and the idolatry they promoted - even though they didn't have Gentile ancestry. ..and there were many righteous Gentiles whom the Lord accepted as apart of his people.



John McKee did a good job covering the issue of being grafted into Israel and examining the ways Gentiles can mean various things...outside of simply saying they're not connected to the House of Israel or other Hebrew dynamics. For more, one can go here to the following:

• Tnnonline - Gentile, Term
• Tnnonline - God Fearers
• Tnnonline - CommonWealth of Israel
• Tnnonline - One New Man (One New Humanity)

A lot of it comes down to the issue of etymology and the use of language/terms and what they can come to mean. In example, when people hear the word "Barbarian", they automatically think about someone who somehow is uncivilized...and if calling yourself one, people would give strange looks in the assumption it means "unintelligent/uncivilized" - despite the fact that it was a term meant to designate location and plenty of great minds who contributed to the world were Barbarian.



For Romans considered anyone living outside the Empire a barbarian! The term held no more significance than today's term for non-citizens: alien. The Romans considered anyone barbaric who hailed from what they considered an inferior culture. Romans looked down on any foreigner. J.V.P. Balsdon writes:

Whatever Tacitus might choose to write in his Germania in praise of the great blonde-haired palefaces beyond the Rhine, they were men who wilted in normal Mediterranean conditions, unable to face the sun, drinking too much and going flabby. Orientals were softies (as, within the empire, were Greeks). Foreigners tended to be governed by kings, and a Roman senator, a vir classimus, betrayed his Roman dignity if he did not address a king as his inferior....​

​

To see the ways that the Barbarians encountered Christ is fascinating and something that is often not considered historically- and on a side note, the same goes for the Oriental culture which influenced things in a lot of good ways despite the ways Hellenism sought to demonize anything from that the area/culture as lacking compared to the Hellenist. But again, Barbarian was not a bad term - and within scripture, it is seen as a positive.

Colossians 3:10-12Colossians 3
When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. 5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[b] 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.


12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here's a picture. "Messianic Jew" is in quotes because it doesn't mean that Gentiles become Jews.

Trying to find where you found the picture....

 

[Qnts2]

When it comes to understanding that Israel today is not all born again - as some are while most aren't - I think it should be noted that there've been many Messianic Jews noting how others in Israel often don't act like the Israel the Lord intended....and personally, I'd go so far as to say that to BE an Israelite, would be for one to make the claim, and then LIVE as an Israelite.

The assumption is that being an Israelite is like an occupation. It isn't. It is a linage. And in a linage, you have all kinds of people, some good, and some not so good.

In scripture, there are very good Israelites people, and some very bad Israelites. But, they never cease being Israelites. If the Israelites are bad, especially the leadership, then the Israelites are scattered from the land, but again, they continue to be Israelites with a promise that God will re-gather them in the land.

The assumption of replacement theology is that Israel sinned their way out of being Israel. That being Israel is a performance based title. In reality, being Israel is a linage, not a job with a title. I can not cease to be my parents child, and I can not be fired from my linage. But replacement theology thinks a person can be fired from the job of being Israel, and another can be hired for that position. But the term is children of Israel, and Israel/Jacob was a real person with real children.

Now, Christian/Messianic means a person has been born from above by faith, and that they are disciples of Jesus, but we also know that there are some not so good Christians/Messianics. Being a Christian/Messianic does not guarantee good behavior either. That is why we received grace and mercy and Yeshua had to die for all of our sins, that we might be saved.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The assumption is that being an Israelite is like an occupation. It isn't. It is a linage. saved.
And in a linage, you have all kinds of people, some good, and some not so good.

Not according to the whole of scripture, which never focused on lineage alone as the standard - one of the basic ideas behind what Christ (John 8 when noting what it meant to be a true "child of Abraham"/having ability to claim him as one's father), John the Baptist ( warning the Jewish people to not have the assumption that being an Israelite was ever about genetics since the Lorc could raise others up from the very stones - per Matthew 3:8-10 /Luke 3 ) and the apostles repeatedly noted when it came to the reality of not all descended from Israel BEING Israel at all.

Romans 9:6
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
Romans 9:5-7 Romans 9
​

It was never a matter of genetics or ancestry alone - and that has to be addressed accurately if dealing fully with what Israel is about.

In scripture, there are very good Israelites people, and some very bad Israelites. But, they never cease being Israelites. If the Israelites are bad, especially the leadership, then the Israelites are scattered from the land, but again, they continue to be Israelites with a promise that God will re-gather them in the land.

Not according to the prophets, who repeatedly noted that even those with ancestry from Israel were not to be deemed as the ISrael God intended when it came to idolatry, witchcraft and a host of other things the Lord directly said would lead to being cut off.

As said before, one would have to ignore PLAINLY what Christ said and what John noted in I John 3 alongside Paul in II Corinthians 10-11 when it came to the concept of others being servants of the enemy. And as the apostle John notes to His Jewish audience on what it means to truly belong to the Lord:

1 John 3:8


He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

​

1 John 3:9-24
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

The Imperative of Love
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.
​

Revelation 3:9 already mentions that there were those Jews of the SYNAGOUGE of Satan based on their actions......and Yeshua made clear that the enemy fathered Children in John 8.....and the same goes for what John mentioned in I John 3 when it came to noting the actions of Cain/his being of the Devil because of who he reflected spiritually. Many assume that noting how physical descendants of Israel don't act like Israel/belong to the Lord equates to Replacement Theology.....but as it concerns Replacement THeology, it is not "Replacement THeology" for one to say that those not acting according to how the Lord said to act would not...and COULD NOT..be considered as "God's People" under the OT. There are far too many Jews who aren't even believers in Yeshua...and yet even they have been able to note that not everything with the name "Israel" is such.

Again, the issue of Cain being of the Evil one goes right alongside what the Lord promised in Genesis 3:15 when it came to the Lord promising Satan that he would place emitity between his seed and that of the womans, whom the Messiah would come. Cain was of the evil one spiritually, regardless of his being born physically as a man.....and Cain, though severely punished for murdering his brother, had no sense of repentance. This theme of others reflecting the enemy's character continued throughout Genesis, as it concerns Genesis 4:19-26 when it came to violence being on the rise and two distinct groups appearing: (1) those who show indifference to sin and evil (like the devil) and (2) those who call on the name of the Lord (the descendants of Seth, Genesis 4:26). In I John 3:15, John clearly echoed Jesus's teaching that whoever hates another person is a murderer at heart (Matthew 5:21-22)....and with Cain, his jealous anger drove him to murder.....and that made him of the devil, seeing how Jesus noted in John 8:44-45 that the enemy was a murderer from the beginning.

ABraham was the Jews SPIRITUAL ancestor (if they followed him), with the flesh being one aspect of that....just as Adam was mankind's spiritual ancestor and all inherited his spiritual nature from him. Others could either be connected to ABraham solely in terms of ethnic heritage----or they could have FULLNESS by having the spiritual mindset that Abraham did, as Paul noted when it came to Abraham being the FATHER of our faith (Romans 4, Galatians 3:6-14, Galatians 3:26-29, Galatians 4, etc). The seed of Abraham was one that was ultimately one by FAITH......and everything else was secondary. ANd because they refused to do as their physical ancestor did, they were deemed by Christ to not belong to Him. Those who did do as Abraham did were truly considered "Children of Abraham" in the full sense..


With the concept of the "synaouge of Satan" that was mentioned in Revelation 3:9 , some have said this is about an issue in translation - believing that Jewish people were not in view- specifically something David Stern noted on the issue of translation (as shared before here in #207 )- although reading what was said in Judaism on the matter of idolatry/abandoning the Lord, it's hard to take issue with the concept of certain Jews being of the Synagouge of Satan. Even if it was the case that there was a translation concern, the concept itself isn't new - that those in the Jewish world who chose not to follow the Lord ended up lost.

The example of Balaam the Prophet comes immediately to mind ( as shared/discussed in #194

2 Peter 2:15
They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer, who loved the wages of wickedness.
2 Peter 2:14-16

Jude 1:11
Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.
Jude 1:10-12 / Jude 1
​

__________________

The Way of Balaam is one of someone who wants to get paid at any costs even when the Lord says no.....as he cursed the Israelites/was denied in doing so at the Word of the Lord (as he was a rouge prophet)---and when Baalam couldn't curse them via God, he taught King Balak (who offered A LOT of money) to seduce the Israelites through sexual immorality so that they'd open themselves up to being cursed. Although he didn't curse them technically by what he said (as the Lord forbid him from doing so/kept from it), he tried to find ways around the rules by getting at them indirectly so that he could get what he wanted. As suggested elsewhere, there's an excellent sermon on the issue (if choosing to right click here ) on Jude that really helps to explain things It's part of a 10 part series throughout the book of Jude.

In order:

• Jude Part 1
• Jude Part 2
• Jude Part 3
• Jude Part 4
• Jude Part 6
• Jude Part 7
• Jude Part 9
• Jude Part 10

A different perspective to consider is from Messianic Jew Jerry Golden, who seeks to explains more on the situation in Zionist state of Israel in this article from 31 Dec 2003. This article may be old but still pretty relevant, IMHO, when considering many of the ways that there have been darker aspects present in the history of the Israeli state and many influences that were never of the Lord...some of it involving imagery/symbolism in many sites all over the nation that are connected with FreeMasonry (and similar to what was discussed here ).

We know from scripture that there were times the Jewish people engaged in idolatry, which means they engaged in other religions, but they were still Jewish/children of Israel, who were being disobedient and considered as not truly living according to what God expected/demanded of Israel. Thus, they were Jewish ethnicty wise but not in practice when it came to God's commands---with the Lord mandating death for anyone dabbling in such or practicing the Occult amongst the children of Israel ( Leviticus 20:5-7 /Leviticus 20:26-27/Deuteronomy 18:10-12 , 2 Kings 21:5-7 , 2 Kings 23:23-252 /2 Chronicles 33:5-7 )...and seeing the amount of times where many of the Hebrews were outrighly involved in the Occult (King Saul seeking out a witch in 1 Samuel 28/1 Chronicles 10:12-14 and someone else bringing witches into the temple ), it doesn't seem difficult to say that those who didn't follow the Messiah and rebelled against him were deemed to be of the enemy.

The same dynamic would also apply to those who are Jewish (as in ethnically born ) and yet are willfully agnostics...such as how many of those in Israel are when it comes to them being both Jewis and agnostic or atheistic. There's also Jewish Kabbalists...or Jewish Marxists (much as Karl Marx was )..or again, Jews who happen to be involved in other things which the scriptures forbid when it came to the gods of other nations/their practices (i.e. divination, witchcraft, astrology, etc). A person who was Jewish did not cease being Jewish due to being involved in differing religions and the scriptures never declare such at any point. ..but they couldn't be described as being active children of God in reflecting who He was

Acts 13:6
They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a Jewish sorcerer and false prophet named Bar-Jesus,
Acts 13:5-7
​

Luke 3:8
Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.


John 8:39
“Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do what Abraham did.
John 8:38-40


Romans 9:8
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.
​

Romans 9:6–12
But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel
​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Here's a picture. "Messianic Jew" is in quotes because it doesn't mean that Gentiles become Jews.

Awesome pictures and thanks for sharing it For it illustrates well the reality of how complex Israel is - and what it means to see it from a multi-dimensional level.

There was a good review on the issue with some good illustrations as well - from Israel and the Church - What's the Relationship?/Israel and the Church - Hebrew for Christians ..on the concept of Remnant Theology:​

​

​

​

Scriptures make a distinction between being an ethnic Jew (i.e., one born Jewish) and one who is considered to be a member of she'arit Yisrael, the faithful remnant of Israel. ​

​

It seems logical to note that a person can be 1) outside of relationship to Israel altogether (i.e., a Gentile); 2) within ethnic Israel by virtue of birth (to a Jewish mother); or 3) within both ethnic Israel (i.e., of Jewish lineage) and part of the faithful remnant (as a Jew who trusts the God of Israel). I'm thankful for others who've taken the time to point out these distinctions as important because there are many who oversimplify the matter and confuse ethnic Israel with the "remnant of Israel chosen by the grace of God" (Rom. 11:5) - despite the fact that the Remnant of Israel is a sovereignly chosen subset of ethnic Israel that has been faithfully preserved by the LORD over the centuries. Its existence is evidenced in the Old Testament Scriptures as is seen in the following cases:

• Isaac was chosen over Ishmael (Gen. 17:19)
• Jacob was chosen over Esau (Gen. 28:13-15)
• Joseph was chosen over his other brothers (Gen. 45:7)
• Israel was chosen (as a nation) at Sinai and a remnant preserved after the sin with the Golden Calf (Ex. 32)
• Caleb and Joshua were chosen among all those of the desert generation to enter into the Promised Land (Num. 14:38)
• Elijah was told that God preserved 7,000 faithful during apostasy (1 Kings 19:18)
• Ezekiel was told that a remnant would be preserved from the northern kingdom after their captivity (Ezek. 37:19)
• The returning exiles from Babylon were chosen (Zech. 8:5)

And within the NT (as Hebrew4Christians notes well) it is further evidenced repeatedly:

• John the Baptist distinguished between those merely born Jewish and those who are part of remnant Israel (Matt. 3:9)
• God chose a remnant of Israel to receive the Messiah (Rom. 11:5)
• After the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, God preserved a remnant of Israel which has continued to this day.
• Paul spoke of the remnant of Israel chosen by God's grace (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:27, 11:5) and the one "New Man" composed of Jews and grafted in Gentiles (Eph. 2:15).
• During the coming Great Tribulation, God will preserve a remnant of Israel (Rev. 7:4).

It seems more than Biblical to understand that Remnant Theology is the best way for understanding the scriptures - as Remnant Theology understands that the Church is "grafted in" or "in-placed" within remnant Israel, and not the other way around -- i.e., remnant Israel is NOT understood to be placed within the Church

​

A person can be 1) outside of relationship to Israel altogether (i.e., a Gentile); 2) within ethnic Israel by virtue of birth (to a Jewish mother); 3) within both ethnic Israel (i.e., of Jewish lineage) and as part of the faithful remnant (as a Jew who trusts the God of Israel), or 4) a Gentile who partakes of the blessings given to the faithful Remnant of Israel

Remnant Theology can make a world of difference in the text of scripture being understood. As another wisely noted (for brief excerpt):​

Being a physical descendant of Abraham, while it does bring an advantage (Romans 3:1-2), does not mean one is automatically a spiritual descendant of Abraham (Romans 2:28-29; John 8:39; Matthew 3:9). "Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel." A person can be part of national Israel, and yet not be part of remnant Israel. There is an Israel within Israel, a subset of physical-and-spiritual Jewish people (remnant Israel) among the group of physically Jewish people (national Israel).

When Gentiles become spiritual descendants of Abraham through faith in Jesus Christ, they become part of this subset also, part of remnant Israel. That believing Gentiles are placed within remnant Israel is clearly shown by Paul's illustration of the olive tree.

Romans 11:16-24
If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.


You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! (Romans 11:16-24; italics added)
​

The Olive Tree
To understand this complex passage, it will be helpful to analyze its terms.

(1) Holy Firstfruits/Root. While some consider Abraham the holy firstfruits/root that makes the whole batch and the branches holy, it is more likely that Jesus holds this position. In Pauline theology and throughout God's Word, the Messiah is the only person who can make others holy (Isaiah 53:2-6; Romans 5:18-19, 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 5:26; Philippians 3:9; esp. Hebrews 2:11, 11:39-40).

Further evidence is found in Romans 9:3-4. "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel." Paul likens separation from Christ as being "cut off" from Him, language consistent with the olive tree metaphor and Christ as its root.

(2) Wild Olive Shoot. This is a reference to an individual Gentile. A shoot is a young, tender sprout, an undeveloped branch.

(3) Natural Branches. This is a reference to Jewish believers. A Jewish believer is a natural branch, whereas a Gentile believer is a wild olive shoot.
(4) Olive Tree. Non-believing Jews are not part of the olive tree. They have been broken off. Therefore, national Israel must not be in view as the olive tree. But the olive tree must represent some aspect of Israel, because, for Jewish believers, it is their own olive tree.
​

​

 

[Qnts2]

Not according to the whole of scripture, which never focused on lineage alone as the standard - one of the basic ideas behind what Christ (John 8 when noting what it meant to be a true "child of Abraham"/having ability to claim him as one's father), John the Baptist ( warning the Jewish people to not have the assumption that being an Israelite was ever about genetics since the Lorc could raise others up from the very stones - per Matthew 3:8-10 /Luke 3 ) and the apostles repeatedly noted when it came to the reality of not all descended from Israel BEING Israel at all.

Romans 9:6
It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
Romans 9:5-7 Romans 9
​

It was never a matter of genetics or ancestry alone - and that



Not according to the prophets, who repeatedly noted that even those with ancestry from Israel were not to be deemed as the ISrael God intended when it came to idolatry, witchcraft and a host of other things the Lord directly said would lead to being cut off.

For the first section, you are confusing children of Abraham with children of Israel. They are not the same, and that is the point being made in John 8. Israel was Jacob. Being a child of Israel, does not mean a person qualifies to be a child of Abraham, which is a linage of faith.

But being a child of Abraham does not mean you are a child of Jacob/Israel. So, an Israelite is a child or descendent of Israel, but might not have the faith of Abraham and be called a child of Abraham. And a child of Abraham which is by faith, might not be a child of Israel but a child of Israel who has the faith of Abraham would also be a child of Abraham. In otherwords, believers are children of Abraham not Jacob.

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The same error for Matthew 3:9 because it does not say to raise up children of Israel. It says children of Abraham. Believers are called children of Abraham but not children of Israel/Jacob. Being an Israelite is about linage (plus converts), but being a child of Abraham is about faith in terms of the New Covenant.

The children of Israel sinned, but did not cease to be children of Israel.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

For the first section, you are confusing children of Abraham with children of Israel. They are not the same, and that is the point being made in John 8. Israel was Jacob. Being a child of Israel, does not mean a person qualifies to be a child of Abraham, which is a linage of faith.

But being a child of Abraham does not mean you are a child of Jacob/Israel. So, an Israelite is a child or descendent of Israel, but might not have the faith of Abraham and be called a child of Abraham. And a child of Abraham which is by faith, might not be a child of Israel but a child of Israel who has the faith of Abraham would also be a child of Abraham. In otherwords, believers are children of Abraham not Jacob.

Matthew 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

The same error for Matthew 3:9 because it does not say to raise up children of Israel. It says children of Abraham. Believers are called children of Abraham but not children of Israel/Jacob. Being an Israelite is about linage (plus converts), but being a child of Abraham is about faith in terms of the New Covenant.

The children of Israel sinned, but did not cease to be children of Israel

Not according to Jews who have long noted. No need going past that when it has been made plain repeatedly in Judaism what it means to be a child of Abraham -as if John or others were talking to Gentiles solely. For that'd not be intellectually consistent with how the text was always discussed amongst early Jewish believers. History is history and we must be faithful to it if representing issues properly. John 8 is a dialouge between Christ and the Jews who came to him - and there is no way around that when he spoke to them plainly (in response to their accusation that he was "demon-possessed" and the son of a Samaritan - as well as illegitimate) and he noted in response they had no claim to being children of Abraham - a concept that was universally understood at the time to be a direct diss of their identiy as Israelites.


It was never about having the "faith of Abraham" that made one a child of Abraham when Christ was speaking to the people - as Abraham and Jacob (patriarchs) were connected/seen as simultaneous. There was no attempt at a false distinction that is rather recent when trying to say "Children of Abraham" are not the same as "Children of Jacob" since it all goes back to Abraham and the Patriarchs are seen as united as one whole within Judaism..

Again, one must show historically that it was universal that the term "children of Abraham" was always meant to imply difference from being a "Child of Jacob" in order for the ideology to be consistent/stable in trying to say that it was not a matter of Abraham/Jacob being different - but that ideology has not been accepted at large within Judaism and it's one of the reasons non-believing Jews have consistently noted Christ to be speaking directly against them in John 8 and other places as not being connected to Jacob...and one of the reasons they noted negatively of him in other places.

But even apart from that, again, there's no real avoidance of what Paul noted rather plainly when it came to the issue of being "Israel"...

Romans 9:6–12

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
​

In verse 6 of Romans 9, he says, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." In other words, Paul’s argument is that the promises of God always hold true for the true Israel, the spiritual Israel, but not all ethnic Israel is true Israel simply because they're ethnically related to Israel (Jacob)---just as not all ethnically related to Abraham are deemed to be "Abraham's Children" like Christ noted. That’s his first statement of the argument: "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." The assumption is: there is a true Israel; God’s saving promises are made to them; and these promises have never failed.

In verse 8 Paul states the argument a third time in more general terms without naming Israel or Abraham so that we see the principle involved. "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." This, he says again, is why the word of God has not failed –why the promises of God have not failed – even though many of Israelites according to the flesh are accursed and cut off from Christ. It’s because the promises are for the children of promise – the children of God – and not every child of Israelite flesh is a child of promise. When Paul distinguishes "children of the flesh" and "children of God" he means that not all physical Israelites are "children of God." And that means that the term "children of God" is not a mere ethnic or physical or historical term. It has its full saving meaning just like it does in Romans 8:16, 21, and Philippians 2:15 (cf. Hosea 1:10). And when he then says that these "children of God" are "children of promise," he means that they have their spiritual position not because of their physical connections, but because of God’s effective promise. The promise produced the position. ...AND those who believe in the Promise (fulfilled in Messiah) are those who truly occupy the position.

As said before when the same discussion was brought up by yourself ( #51 ), One Messianic, Brother mpossoff, began an excellent dialouge on the subject not too long ago (here, here, here, here , here, here , here and here/here)...concerning what it means to be nourished by the Root. Outside of that, I doubt there'll be much agreement in this case just as in others when the same was rehashed/addressed.

And all of this - to be clear - goes back to noting what it means to be a part of God's One New Man. Yeshua himself also pointed to the same realities - at the cost of being denounced by the Jewish people in his audience - when talking on Gentiles being deemed as equals with the Jewish people concerning acceptance/love. From Naaman the Syrian ( #101 ) to the Samaritan Woman in her interactions with the Messiah ( #15 #35 #186 ) or the ROman centurions Yeshua celebrated ( as noted in #75 /#77 and #94 ). The same can be seen in many of his parables to the Hebrews on gathering others from the highways to the streets and many other places - and putting them in a position of influence when others for whom the banquet was made REFUSED to come ( Luke 14:23-25/ ).

Matthew 8
The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Matthew 22
4 “Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’ 5 “But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6 The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7 The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.

8 “Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9 Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10 So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
​

Luke 13:21
But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

​

Matthew 21:16
“Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

41 “He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone[h];
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’[i]?

​

43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed
​

 

[Qnts2]

Not according to Jews who have long noted. No need going past that when it has been made plain repeatedly in Judaism what it means to be a child of Abraham -as if John or others were talking to Gentiles solely. For that'd not be intellectually consistent with how the text was always discussed amongst early Jewish believers. History is history and we must be faithful to it if representing issues properly. John 8 is a dialouge between Christ and the Jews who came to him - and there is no way around that when he spoke to them plainly (in response to their accusation that he was "demon-possessed" and the son of a Samaritan - as well as illegitimate) and he noted in response they had no claim to being children of Abraham - a concept that was universally understood at the time to be a direct diss of their identiy as Israelites.


It was never about having the "faith of Abraham" that made one a child of Abraham when Christ was speaking to the people - as Abraham and Jacob (patriarchs) were connected/seen as simultaneous. There was no attempt at a false distinction that is rather recent when trying to say "Children of Abraham" are not the same as "Children of Jacob" since it all goes back to Abraham and the Patriarchs are seen as united as one whole within Judaism..

Again, one must show historically that it was universal that the term "children of Abraham" was always meant to imply difference from being a "Child of Jacob" in order for the ideology to be consistent/stable in trying to say that it was not a matter of Abraham/Jacob being different - but that ideology has not been accepted at large within Judaism and it's one of the reasons non-believing Jews have consistently noted Christ to be speaking directly against them in John 8 and other places as not being connected to Jacob...and one of the reasons they noted negatively of him in other places.

While the terminology of the Jewish people has always been, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the forefathers, the distinction being made is at Abraham and not Jacob. Had scripture meant to say that children of Israel were no longer children of Israel, it would have said Israel/Jacob, but instead it says Abraham.

The reasoning is scripturally simple. The promise of faith, that Abraham would be the Father of many nations, is in reference to the Messianic promise. So the promise of many nations coming to the Messiah was given to Abraham because of his faith. That promise was not given to Jacob. Jacob was not the father of many nations.

In scripture, the children of Israel are promised to be re-gathered. Re-gathered means they were once gathered and then dispersed. That is not a promise to believers, as believers were never gathered in one location, but are diverse nations with diverse land/countries. So, believers can not be RE-gathered. However, believers will be gathered for the first time in the future, and Israel will be gathered a second time in the future (but happening now). This is one of the future promises to Israel, so Israel must exist as a distinct people by linage.

Jeremiah 31:
35 Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The Lord of hosts is his name:
36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
37 Thus saith the Lord; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the Lord.

Seed of Israel simply means those who are born as a descendent of Jacob, Jacob's seed (sperm). Nation of Israel means being a people group who are descendants of Jacob/Israel. And in these verses, the Lord is very specific, that He will not caste off Israel for the sins (all that they have done), as long as there is a sun, moon, stars and the heavens are not fully measured. This is a promise to the physical descendents of Jacob and since there is still a sun, moon and stars, the children(descendents) of Israel still exist as a physical people according to Gods promise.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

While the terminology of the Jewish people has always been, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the forefathers, the distinction being made is at Abraham and not Jacob. Had scripture meant to say that children of Israel were no longer children of Israel, it would have said Israel/Jacob, but instead it says Abraham.

The reasoning is scripturally simple. The promise of faith, that Abraham would be the Father of many nations, is in reference to the Messianic promise. So the promise of many nations coming to the Messiah was given to Abraham because of his faith. That promise was not given to Jacob. Jacob was not the father of many nations.
.

As said before,

There has never been any distinction made directly within Judaism - from the time of the rabbis developing to the time of the Early Body of believers who were Jewish in the 1st century - that being a Child of Abraham was distinct from being a Child of Jacob...and trying to claim such can be akin to forcing things to fit a definition which was never present/creating a false scenario that the Jewish people never promoted. If one can show within Judaism that being a Child of Abraham was deemed to be SEPERATE from being a Child of Jacob, however, that's one thing. Thus far, from those Jews I've talked to, there was never such an ideology.

Jacob/Israel was seen as the continuation of the Promise of Abraham - just as the Seed of Promise was given through the LINE of the Patriarchs. Jacob had many sons (12) and those 12 SONS were distinctive for the Hebrew people - but Jacob himself was not divorced from Abraham in regards to being nourished by the Promise the Lord had for the nations.

And as said before, even apart from that, again, there's no real avoidance of what Paul noted rather plainly when it came to the issue of being "Israel"...

Romans 9:6–12

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
​

In verse 6 of Romans 9, he says, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." In other words, Paul’s argument is that the promises of God always hold true for the true Israel, the spiritual Israel, but not all ethnic Israel is true Israel simply because they're ethnically related to Israel (Jacob)---just as not all ethnically related to Abraham are deemed to be "Abraham's Children" like Christ noted. That’s his first statement of the argument: "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." The assumption is: there is a true Israel; God’s saving promises are made to them; and these promises have never failed.

In verse 8 Paul states the argument a third time in more general terms without naming Israel or Abraham so that we see the principle involved. "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." This, he says again, is why the word of God has not failed –why the promises of God have not failed – even though many of Israelites according to the flesh are accursed and cut off from Christ. It’s because the promises are for the children of promise – the children of God – and not every child of Israelite flesh is a child of promise. When Paul distinguishes "children of the flesh" and "children of God" he means that not all physical Israelites are "children of God." And that means that the term "children of God" is not a mere ethnic or physical or historical term. It has its full saving meaning just like it does in Romans 8:16, 21, and Philippians 2:15 (cf. Hosea 1:10). And when he then says that these "children of God" are "children of promise," he means that they have their spiritual position not because of their physical connections, but because of God’s effective promise. The promise produced the position. ...AND those who believe in the Promise (fulfilled in Messiah) are those who truly occupy the position.

As said before when the same discussion was brought up by yourself ( #51 ), One Messianic, Brother mpossoff, began an excellent dialouge on the subject not too long ago (here, here, here, here , here, here , here and here/here)...concerning what it means to be nourished by the Root. Outside of that, I doubt there'll be much agreement in this case just as in others when the same was rehashed/addressed - and more was said in-depth earlier, as discussed here:

Here's a picture. "Messianic Jew" is in quotes because it doesn't mean that Gentiles become Jews.
Attached Thumbnails

__________________

Awesome pictures and thanks for sharing it For it illustrates well the reality of how complex Israel is - and what it means to see it from a multi-dimensional level.

There was a good review on the issue with some good illustrations as well - from Israel and the Church - What's the Relationship?/Israel and the Church - Hebrew for Christians ..on the concept of Remnant Theology:​

​

​

​

.............................................. As another wisely noted (for brief excerpt):​

..........When Gentiles become spiritual descendants of Abraham through faith in Jesus Christ, they become part of this subset also, part of remnant Israel. That believing Gentiles are placed within remnant Israel is clearly shown by Paul's illustration of the olive tree.

Romans 11:16-24
If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you.


You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! (Romans 11:16-24; italics added)
​

The Olive Tree
To understand this complex passage, it will be helpful to analyze its terms.

(1) Holy Firstfruits/Root. While some consider Abraham the holy firstfruits/root that makes the whole batch and the branches holy, it is more likely that Jesus holds this position. In Pauline theology and throughout God's Word, the Messiah is the only person who can make others holy (Isaiah 53:2-6; Romans 5:18-19, 10:4; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Ephesians 5:26; Philippians 3:9; esp. Hebrews 2:11, 11:39-40).

Further evidence is found in Romans 9:3-4. "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel." Paul likens separation from Christ as being "cut off" from Him, language consistent with the olive tree metaphor and Christ as its root.

(2) Wild Olive Shoot. This is a reference to an individual Gentile. A shoot is a young, tender sprout, an undeveloped branch.

(3) Natural Branches. This is a reference to Jewish believers. A Jewish believer is a natural branch, whereas a Gentile believer is a wild olive shoot.
(4) Olive Tree. Non-believing Jews are not part of the olive tree. They have been broken off. Therefore, national Israel must not be in view as the olive tree. But the olive tree must represent some aspect of Israel, because, for Jewish believers, it is their own olive tree.
​

The olive tree represents remnant Israel. This idea is highly supported by the context of the passage. Previously, Paul has mentioned true Israel (9:6), the remnant of Israel (9:27, 11:5), the elect of Israel (11:7).


Remnant Israel = the Church
The olive tree represents remnant Israel, but does it also represent the Church? The olive tree is a group of Jews and Gentiles made holy by the Messiah. That is also an accurate description of the Church (Ephesians 3:6). With the olive tree metaphor, Paul was writing to Gentile believers (Romans 11:13), members of the Church. And yet, the context of the olive tree metaphor was not the Church per se. In Romans, Paul's first use of ekklesia comes in Chapter 16 (vv. 1, 5, 23), where it refers to local assemblies, not the entire body of believers. The context of the olive tree metaphor is remnant Israel (Romans 11:5, 7)--"their [Jewish people's] own olive tree" (11:24).

If Paul had confined his olive tree illustration to include Jewish people only, remnant Israel might have been something separate from the Church, or something placed within the Church. Since Gentile believers are grafted into the olive tree, however, it is clear that remnant Israel is not confined to physical Jews only, but rather, contains the same redeemed peoples who are members of the Church.

Paul's olive tree metaphor is similar to his human body metaphor (Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 12:12ff). The fact that he uses the two metaphors so close to one another (Romans 11 and 12) shows he is speaking about the same group of people in both. In the body metaphor, the Messiah is the head that gives direction to the rest of the body. Similarly, in the olive tree metaphor, the tree gets its sustenance and origin from the Messiah. In both metaphors, the membership is both Jew and Gentile. For the one: Jewish and Gentile body parts; for the other: Jewish branches and Gentile shoots.
A third metaphor is the spiritual temple spoken of by both Paul and Peter (Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Peter 2:4-6). Here, the Messiah is the chief cornerstone and the redeemed peoples (Jew and Gentile) are living stones who form a spiritual building.
​

​

 

[Qnts2]

As said before,

There has never been any distinction made directly within Judaism - from the time of the rabbis developing to the time of the Early Body of believers who were Jewish in the 1st century - that being a Child of Abraham was distinct from being a Child of Jacob...and trying to claim such can be akin to forcing things to fit a definition which was never present/creating a false scenario that the Jewish people never promoted. If one can show within Judaism that being a Child of Abraham was deemed to be SEPERATE from being a Child of Jacob, however, that's one thing. Thus far, from those Jews I've talked to, there was never such an ideology.

Jacob/Israel was seen as the continuation of the Promise of Abraham - just as the Seed of Promise was given through the LINE of the Patriarchs. Jacob had many sons (12) and those 12 SONS were distinctive for the Hebrew people - but Jacob himself was not divorced from Abraham in regards to being nourished by the Promise the Lord had for the nations.

And as said before, even apart from that, again, there's no real avoidance of what Paul noted rather plainly when it came to the issue of being "Israel"...

Romans 9:6–12

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; 7 nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED." 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. 9 For this is the word of promise: "AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON."
​

In verse 6 of Romans 9, he says, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." In other words, Paul’s argument is that the promises of God always hold true for the true Israel, the spiritual Israel, but not all ethnic Israel is true Israel simply because they're ethnically related to Israel (Jacob)---just as not all ethnically related to Abraham are deemed to be "Abraham's Children" like Christ noted. That’s his first statement of the argument: "They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel." The assumption is: there is a true Israel; God’s saving promises are made to them; and these promises have never failed.

In verse 8 Paul states the argument a third time in more general terms without naming Israel or Abraham so that we see the principle involved. "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." This, he says again, is why the word of God has not failed –why the promises of God have not failed – even though many of Israelites according to the flesh are accursed and cut off from Christ. It’s because the promises are for the children of promise – the children of God – and not every child of Israelite flesh is a child of promise. When Paul distinguishes "children of the flesh" and "children of God" he means that not all physical Israelites are "children of God." And that means that the term "children of God" is not a mere ethnic or physical or historical term. It has its full saving meaning just like it does in Romans 8:16, 21, and Philippians 2:15 (cf. Hosea 1:10). And when he then says that these "children of God" are "children of promise," he means that they have their spiritual position not because of their physical connections, but because of God’s effective promise. The promise produced the position. ...AND those who believe in the Promise (fulfilled in Messiah) are those who truly occupy the position.

As said before when the same discussion was brought up by yourself ( #51 ), One Messianic, Brother mpossoff, began an excellent dialouge on the subject not too long ago (here, here, here, here , here, here , here and here/here)...concerning what it means to be nourished by the Root. Outside of that, I doubt there'll be much agreement in this case just as in others when the same was rehashed/addressed

The discussion about the roots is a much different discussion.

This one is more about replacement theology. Is the children of Israel made up of those who are descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or is the new Israel the church who are children of Abraham.

That is very very different then who or what is the root. Replacement theology is a different belief then the process of grafting in, and into what are we grafted.