Patching the Israel-flaw in Covenant Theology

[Al Touthentop]

Any valid treatment of Adam implies reincarnation.

Since reincarnation is not taught in the bible, this is self-evidently false.

 

[JAL]

Since reincarnation is not taught in the bible, this is self-evidently false.

It is taught implicitly.

 

[Al Touthentop]

It is taught implicitly.

Its taught against explicitly.

1 Samuel 28 16-19
"Then Samuel said: “So why do you ask me, seeing the Lord has departed from you and has become your enemy? 17 And the Lord has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me."

Not re-incarnate on the earth but in Hades with Samuel who was also not reincarnated.

"And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

Once you end up in hades you're there until the resurrection or until you are allowed to return AS YOURSELF, as we see in Samuel and the transfiguration.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Agreed, although I can't make sense of why a perfectly kind, fair, loving, and merciful God would allow the consequences of one man's sin to befall 100 billion innocent fetuses and infants. My view of Adam solves that problem.

We ALL die, not just infants

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But they knew who were the Levites and the sacrifices were still offered while they were in Babylon.

What does that have to do with anything. The temple was in Jerusalem and was destroyed. Not all Torah is dependent on the Temple.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Some Gentiles were judged by the law too, those who submitted to it while it was still in effect. Nobody is judged by that law today as it is no longer in effect.

What IS in effect? Are you permitted to murder now? If not, why not, since you say the law is not in effect? Sin is the transgression of the law.

 

[Al Touthentop]

What does that have to do with anything. The temple was in Jerusalem and was destroyed. Not all Torah is dependent on the Temple.

All sacrifices were to be done in the temple. While they were in captivity obviously this wouldn't be possible. But the Levites were the only ones who could perform the sacrifices, specifically the priests of Aaron's family.

Today's Jewish people no longer can differentiate between the tribes and couldn't offer sacrifices even if they wanted to. Big difference. The genealogies were destroyed. It is unlawful under the old law for a non-Levite to even handle any of the utensils. You can't go back to the law today even if you wanted to.

 

[Al Touthentop]

What IS in effect? Are you permitted to murder now? If not, why not, since you say the law is not in effect? Sin is the transgression of the law.

The "perfect law of liberty" or the law of Christ.

Jesus said that even hatred in your heart for your brother was murder. We're under a law, just not the old law.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

All sacrifices were to be done in the temple. While they were in captivity obviously this wouldn't be possible. But the Levites were the only ones who could perform the sacrifices, specifically the priests of Aaron's family.

Today's Jewish people no longer can differentiate between the tribes and couldn't offer sacrifices even if they wanted to. Big difference. The genealogies were destroyed. It is unlawful under the old law for a non-Levite to even handle any of the utensils. You can't go back to the law today even if you wanted to.

Again, Torah was still kept in Babylon, but not parts that required The Temple, that was my point. The Torah was not done away just because there was no Temple. There is no Temple today, yet some Torah can still be kept. Also, the Cohen modal haplotype can be found in current Jewish lineages so Levites know who they are.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The "perfect law of liberty" or the law of Christ.

Jesus said that even hatred in your heart for your brother was murder. We're under a law, just not the old law.

Define that. Yeshua taught Torah.

 

[Charlie24]

Although I am a firm believer in Original Sin (Romans 5), the traditional version is problematical. Please read the opening post on this thread for my solution to the problem of Adam.

In my view, then, God, after the Fall, redistributed Adam's material soul. Each of us is a piece of that soul. God didn't 'give' me a sinful nature. I am sinful in nature because I am the Adam who sinned, or at least a piece of him. In fact I'm even going to use a dirty word here. In a sense I am a reincarnation of Adam. This is not the automatic-reincarnation of false religions. It is the hand of a sovereign God redistributing Adam's soul as He pleases.

This raises the question - how many lives is it possible for me to live? After I die, couldn't God reincarnate me again? Yes, although generally I don't think it happens often. Yet didn't Hebrews say it is appointed for man to die only once? Death is experiencing the biological cessation of heart and brain activity. If God intends to reincarnate someone, He can withdraw their soul a moment prior to biological death.

Again, I don't think it happens often - EXCEPT for Israel. In my view, Israel is a kind of everlasting generation (for lack of a better word). This is how God intends to fulfill His promise to the nation of Israel. I'm not saying that every Israelite is repeatedly reincarnated. What I'm saying is that, with respect to the original Israelites who left Egypt - the set of souls who received the promises from Moses - each of them will be reincarnated at least until they come to saving faith in Christ. This means that:
(1) Modern Jews are not necessarily included. Or as Paul puts it at Romans 9:6, "Not all who are of Israel, are Israel". See point #2 for clarification.
(2) The original Israeli souls (from the days of Moses) are most likely scattered among the nations. This means that any of us Christians might be one of those souls - even though we don't currently remember our past life as it was in the days of Moses.

While I can't prove my claim apodictically, I can cite a few verses that seem to suggest that Israel is indeed an everlasting generation. I'll do that in my next post.

You misread the text. He did not blame "this generation" for those murders. He said that they would bring upon themselves the blood of those murders by doing the same to the prophets that he would send.

God does not EVER charge the sin of the fathers to the sons.

Ezekiel 18:19-20
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. "

You misread the text. He did not blame "this generation" for those murders. He said that they would bring upon themselves the blood of those murders by doing the same to the prophets that he would send.

God does not EVER charge the sin of the fathers to the sons.

Ezekiel 18:19-20
“Yet you say, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Because the son has done what is lawful and right, and has kept all My statutes and observed them, he shall surely live. 20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. "

It is my belief that Paul was speaking of all who were alive at the time when "all of Israel will be saved."

I think those Jews who died without Christ before this time have lost their souls.

Zechariah tells us that two thirds of Israel will be killed at the hand of the antichrist and I believe these are the ones Paul is referring to.

There are so many interpretations that it is hard to believe anything anymore.

 

[JAL]

"And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

Once you end up in hades you're there until the resurrection or until you are allowed to return AS YOURSELF, as we see in Samuel and the transfiguration.

The story of Lazarus appears at the end of a sequence of parables. As far as I can see, parables are typically clear enough for conveying morals and virtues but a bit opaque for building a systematic theology. Not much to go on.

Its taught against explicitly.

1 Samuel 28 16-19
"Then Samuel said: “So why do you ask me, seeing the Lord has departed from you and has become your enemy? 17 And the Lord has done for Himself as He spoke by me. For the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover the Lord will also deliver Israel with you into the hand of the Philistines. And tomorrow you and your sons will be with me."

Not re-incarnate on the earth but in Hades with Samuel who was also not reincarnated.

Samuel was in hell? Was that a typo for Saul? But even Saul prophesied by the Spirit of God at one point, so I doubt he went to hell.

As I said before, I see the main purpose of reincarnation as God's effort to insure that every one of the original Israeli nation - those who participated in the Exodus - is eventually saved. Corrupt as they were, Saul and his sons, if already justified by faith, need not be reincarnated. Nor is there any guarantee that they are Israel, "for not all who are of Israel, are Israel." But as I see it, the passage isn't tying God's hands. Although it does indicate that "tomorrow you and you r sons will be with me", it doesn't dictate what God can, and cannot do, starting the day after tomorrow.

I think you're making this too complicated. Simple syllogism:
(1) God punishes only those who sinned.
(2) He punishes all mankind (Gen 3:16-19).
(3) Therefore all men actually sinned - even fetuses.

When did the souls of these fetuses sin? If Romans 5 has anything to say about it, they sinned in Adam, for "by the disobedience of the one man, the many became sinners"(5:19).

 

[ralliann]

What IS in effect? Are you permitted to murder now? If not, why not, since you say the law is not in effect? Sin is the transgression of the law.

Murder was sin long before the law of Moses.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Murder was sin long before the law of Moses.

That's right! That is actually part of my point!

 

[ralliann]

That's right! That is actually part of my point!

Part of your point? Then what is your point?

 

[JAL]

It is my belief that Paul was speaking of all who were alive at the time when "all of Israel will be saved."

Not a bad theory. But my approach resolves not only Rom 11:26 but also several eschatological passages that have needlessly led to preterism. I don't think that R.C. Sproul WANTED to slip into preterism. I think that, in his effort to avoid intellectual dishonesty, preterism seemed to him, at that time, the only viable solution. I'm proposing a different one.

Anyway back to your view. I think you're saying that Rom 11:26 is already fulfilled. But I think Paul was saying that it won't be entirely fulfilled until after the full number of Gentiles is brought in.

"Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this way all Israel will be saved" (Rom 11).

Also my reading provides a more seamless view of 9:6 it seems to me:

"For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (Rom 9).

Here again, it's a highly nationalistic context that, instead of denoting a "spiritual Israel", is nationally distinguishing Israel from the Gentiles. Paul is discerning two groups of Israelis - the real Israelis versus the quasi-Israelis. This distinction is perfectly clear in my system, but less clear in others.

The upshot of my reading is that, in Romans, Paul consistently uses the term "Israel" nationalistically. This consistency heightens its plausibility.

The other problem is that Paul refers to this "Israel" as God's elect. That being the case, it should include an entire nation of people without exception - in my view the entire Israeli nation of Moses' day is in view (i.e. that original set of souls). Whereas with your view, I think it's clear there would have to be exceptions. I'm pretty sure that not all the Jews of Paul's day got saved.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The story of Lazarus appears at the end of a sequence of parables. As far as I can see, parables are typically clear enough for conveying morals and virtues but a bit opaque for building a systematic theology. Not much to go on.

The story was a real one. It wasn't a parable.

Samuel was in hell? Was that a typo for Saul? But even Saul prophesied by the Spirit of God at one point, so I doubt he went to hell.

Neither Sheol nor Hades is "hell." It's the place where the dead go. Apparently, Jesus says there's a gulf between where the bad and good people go.

As I said before, I see the main purpose of reincarnation as God's effort to insure that every one of the original Israeli nation - those who participated in the Exodus - is eventually saved.

Everyone who followed the old law is saved. Paul, when he wrote that "all Israel will be saved," was talking about the new Israel, Jews and Gentiles who obey the gospel. There is no reincarnation, it's taught against in the scriptures and people get one chance to get it right.

When did the souls of these fetuses sin?

They didn't. They're not born in sin. The bible doesn't teach that at all. Jesus himself says that when we're born again we become like children. Children are sinless.

Matthew 18:3
“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."


Reincarnation is taught against in the Bible. It's not implied, it is explicitly saying that re-incarnation does not happen. Here, Paul is speaking specifically to Jews.

Hebrews 9:27-28
"And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many."

 

[JAL]

The story was a real one. It wasn't a parable.

You're entitled to that opinion. I'm just not sure why I should agree.

Everyone who followed the old law is saved.

So you do believe in salvation by good works? Or maybe you're saying that anyone who, with a sincere heart, tried to follow the law was justified by faith? You're not proposing two different ways of salvation, right? I intended this thread for Covenant Theology.

Everyone who followed the old law is saved.

God has ONE law - love. The specifics of how to apply it vary from nation to nation, generation to generation, individual to individual, due to differing circumstances. These differences have NOTHING to do with covenants or dispensations or like. The Mosaic law is the same law governing NT saints except it was tailored for THAT nation and THAT set of circumstances. Again, there are no relevant distinctions between OT and NT saints.

The Mosaic Law was terminated only nominally/superficially. This was a brilliant tactic on the part of a God faced with a dilemma, namely, how do you get these stubborn, hard-headed people to renounce a bunch of outmoded ceremonies? Solution - given that the one Covenant of Grace can manifest in any number of covenants, define two separate covenants:
(1) Israel's Old Covenant
(2) Israel's New Covenant
And then DECLARE the old one expired at some point. Is that deceptive? Not at all. It's a matter of perspective. Consider this perspective: technically speaking, the moment Moses received the Law, it was already expired! Because God's voice expresses His will FOR THE CURRENT MOMENT. And since circumstances can change from moment to moment, written law is not technically binding beyond that first moment. HOWEVER, the circumstances in Israel were stable enough that the written law remained a fairly decent guideline for many centuries.

That's why, as Andrew Murray was quick to point out, the OT rarely has God saying, "Obey my laws" (unless you're reading the NIV). Rather the usual expression is, "Obey my voice" (about 50 times in the OT). Things to note:
(1) The Hebrew word for voice is qowl which appears 500 times in the OT in consistently sonic contexts. It ALWAYS means voice. It NEVER means written law.
(2) The Hebrew word for "obey" means hearken as unto a voice.

To summarize. As I've repeatedly pointed out on this thread, there is no "new covenant". That language is a dialect of convenience brilliantly conceived by God for furtherance of the one Covenant of Grace - the Voice-covenant, for "The promises were spoken unto Abraham and to [us] his seed and to [Christ] his seed" (Gal 3:16, my rendering).

Just as that Voice shouted the 10 commandments to all Israel (Ex 20), it voices commands (laws) to each individual today. Literally NOTHING has changed.

Moreover, Israel's New Covenant is for Israel, not the Gentiles. In its strictest sense, it announces the restoration of Israel - the full cleansing of their hearts via the writing of the law on the heart. Ezekiel and Jeremiah spoke of these things. This cleansing is necessary because Israel forfeited the land due to disobedience. Thus in order to retain promised land forever, they will need an irrevocable cleansing. This will happen in the next world, either in heaven or perhaps in a millennial reign (depending on one's eschatology). That's why Hebrews merely DESCRIBES Israel's new covenant - it NEVER actually says that it was put in force!

But that covenant is certainly NOT for the Gentiles. Here's how Hebrews refers to it:

"The days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah"

If that covenant is for us, which house are we? The house of Israel? Or the house of Judah?

Didn't Jesus institute a new covenant, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood". Certainly. He instituted the ceremony of sacramental eucharist - and couched it in a new covenant, once again as a brilliant dialect of convenience helping to repel His disciples from outmoded Jewish customs. Again, the one Covenant of Grace allows for any number of covenants issued by the Voice - in this case it was the voice of Jesus at the paschal table.

Paul, when he wrote that "all Israel will be saved," was talking about the new Israel, Jews and Gentiles who obey the gospel. There is no reincarnation, it's taught against in the scriptures and people get one chance to get it right.

One chance? That's contrary to fact, right? Men were raised from the dead. Like it or not, resurrection is basically a variety of reincarnation. There really isn't much relevant distinction between the two.

They didn't. They're not born in sin. The bible doesn't teach that at all. Jesus himself says that when we're born again we become like children. Children are sinless.

Matthew 18:3
“Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Your view seems to imply the possibility of salvation by good works. I asked you some questions about that a while back but I don't recall that you responded.

Reincarnation is taught against in the Bible. It's not implied, it is explicitly saying that re-incarnation does not happen. Here, Paul is speaking specifically to Jews.

Hebrews 9:27-28
"And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many."

Again, your reading is contrary to fact. Men were raised from the dead, only to die again.

 

[JAL]

Reincarnation is taught against in the Bible

You don't find it conspicuously germane that Elijah never actually died? You should, because Jewish scholars do. ALL Jews, as far as I know, are awaiting the return of Elijah. The question is whether he is supposed to return in his original body or in a new one. If he returns in a new one, I think that would count as a bona fide reincarnation.

One of my personal theories is that John the Baptist's soul was an infinitesimally small piece of Elijah's soul. Naturally he would not, in ordinary conversations, identify himself as Elijah just as I would never claim that my name is Adam.

Several reasons for my belief that John was a reincarnation of Elijah:
(1) Luke said that John would go forth in the spirit of Elijah (lowercase) at LK 1:17. Most Bibles (19 of 20 that I checked) put it in lowercase in recognition that the Holy Spirit was already mentioned in the previous verse, and Luke isn't needlessly redundant.

(2) Jesus actually SAID - twice - that John was Elijah and I happen to believe Him (Mat 11:14; 17:13). Notably, He prefaced it with, "If you are willing to accept it". As various commentators have pointed out, Jesus obviously anticipated an unwillingness to accept it. Why is this important? Because if John were merely a TYPE of Elijah, no one would have difficulty accepting it! It is precisely because reincarnation is a doctrine difficult for many to accept that Jesus anticipated resistance to the idea - precisely what I've seen on this thread !!!

(3) Resistant to reincarnation, the commentators claim that Elijah merely typified John even as David typified Christ, but this Davidic typing only strengthens my case since the NT does not identify Christ as David but, on the contrary, as the Son of David (Mat 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; 22:42; Mk 10:47-48; 12:35; Lk 1:32; 18:38-39; 20:41; Jn 7:42; Rom 1:3; 2Ti 2:8; Rev 5:5; 22:16). Whereas John is never called "son of Elijah", on the contrary Christ actually twice called him Elijah. And although it was natural for OT prophets to refer to Christ typologically as "David" prior to His appellation "Jesus", it would be quite another thing in retrospect. Speaking in retrospect, Christ – in the context of a long speech designed to speak literally about John‘s persona – continued to call him "Elijah" (Mat 11:1-15).

(4) Let's return to Luke 1:17. The angel said:
"And [John] shall go before [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Lk 1:17, KJV).

The angel was actually quoting Mal 4:5-6, which is an Elijah-prophecy originating at Mal 3:1, a verse later identified with John at Mat 11:10 as some Bibles note in the margin.

There's still a tad bit more that should be said here but this post got too long already.

 

[JAL]

I updated point 4. Somehow I had lost some text.