The Commonwealth of Israel to be added to the MJ Statement of Faith? (bis)

Gxg (G²) · Sep 18, 2012

Qnts2 said:
Personally, I don't see a 'Spiritual Israel'. The terminology is not a scriptural terminology so is a short hand for a theological view.
.

More than understand. I do see the concept of a Spiritual Israel as opposed to Israel always 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. Literally Israel, of the children of Israel, are physical descendants of Israel (aka Jacob). That is the crux of the issue. Jacob was renamed Israel and the descendents of Jacob are called the children of Israel. Gentile believers are never said to be sons of Jacob or sons of Israel. Gentile believers are said to be sons of Abraham, but not Jacob. Therefore Gentile believers who are not physical sons of Abraham but are 'Spiritual sons of Abraham' and not Spiritual sons of Jacob/Israel.

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.

On this forum, the term church carries a different connotation connected to the method of practice. I view the term Church, with the capitol to comprise all born again believers and the term church the organizational structure like denominations or simply the building. Since the term is confusin, I'll 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 )....

Israel today is not all born again. Some are. Most aren't. It is the physical descendents of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore Israel is not part of the Ecclesia, although some members of Israel are also members of the Ecclesia.

Makes sense..

So the Ecclesia is brought near to the commonwealth of Israel. Now the question is, 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.

Indeed. 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) · Sep 18, 2012

Qnts2 said:
Israel today is not all born again. Some are. Most aren't.

I know 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.

As said elsewhere, for an excellent review on who they are, one historical study I'd highly recommend would be the following:

Jonadab The Son Of Rechab Shall Not Lack A Man To Stand Before Me Forever - Edge Induced Cohesion http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpres...ll-not-lack-a-man-to-stand-before-me-forever/

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

__________________

Qnts2 · Sep 18, 2012

Since being an 'Israelite' means being a descendent of Israel/Jacob, actions really have little to do with it. I don't have to act a particular way to be my mother and fathers child. I am simply by birth.

In the scriptures, the descendents of Jacob/Israel are talked about quite a bit. Some were considered very very good, and some not so good, and some outright sinners. But, thru all of it, God still called them children of Israel, and if good, blessed them and if bad warned them by sending prophets. And yet, God promised He would not forget the children of Israel as long as the sun is in the sky, and would re-gather them in the land, and these future promises occurred right after he explained how hard hearted we were. You see. Actions never changed the fact that we were children of Israel, even when bad. We are better off when we are good and obedient, but even when not, we are still called children of Israel.

But, God is quite clear that He did not chose us because of some inherent goodness, or superiority. We are called the smallest and weakest and stiff necked in scripture.

Easy G (G²);61408480 said:
I know 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

__________________

Qnts2 · Sep 18, 2012

When reading various Church stances and commentaries, one thing to remember is that some of these teachings have been passed down with 'replacement theology' being the theology which is used when interpreting scripture. Having read a few of Matthew Henry's commentaries, he subscribed to replacement theology so his understanding and commentaries make certain assumptions which are not necessarily true.

Galatians 6 is written to Gentile believers who were being told to be circumcised, which of course is being discouraged. It was Jewish people who were coming into Galatia and trying to get the Gentiles circumcised.

This chapter is wrapped up with the statement
'16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.'. So, those who understand that circumcision is not something to boast on, speaking to the Gentiles, Paul prays for peace and mercy upon these Gentiles, and also on the Israel of God. Who is the Israel of God? Paul is now addressing a second group who are not Gentiles who understand what he is teaching. Paul is now blessing the 'Israel of God' which are children of Israel who have come to believe on Yeshua.

The Israel of God is the born again members of Israel. The distinction is needed because not all of Israel is saved. It would be similar to saying the Egyptians of God distinguishing that not all Egyptians are born again. Today, we might say the people and the Christian people to distinguish but much like Israel, not all who call themselves Christians are born again. The Israel of God today, are called Messianic Jews since it is more common for us to call ourselves Jews rather then Israelites, but Messianic Jews distinguishes the difference since we believe that the Messiah has come and He is Jesus.

As far as the difference between children of Abraham and children of Jacob, we can look at linage. Not all children of Abraham are children of Jacob. Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael. And Jacob was the child who received the blessing and birthright, not Esau. So to be a child of Israel means to be a child of Jacob. The promise of the land went first to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob and his children, so it is often said, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but all children of Jacob were children of Israel. Abraham received unique promises not passed on to Isaac and Jacob, that he would be the father of many nations. Jacob was the father on one nation, not many. Abraham was the fore-father of the Messiah.

It is into Abraham all beleivers are adopted. So, while the children of Esau will never be children of Jacob (Israel), the children of Esau can be children of Abraham by faith. Both physically descendents and spiritually by faith but it is only by faith that they inherit the spiritual promises. Of course the same with children of Ishmael. They are not children of Jacob (Israel) but are physically descendents of Abraham although not thru the child of the physical promises they are still physical descendents of Abraham. They can be children of the Spiritual promises by faith and become Spiritual children of Abraham. It is only the Spiritual children of Abraham who receive the Spiritual promises.

Lulav · Sep 18, 2012

Qnts2 said:
Since being an 'Israelite' means being a descendent of Israel/Jacob, actions really have little to do with it. I don't have to act a particular way to be my mother and fathers child. I am simply by birth.

In the scriptures, the descendents of Jacob/Israel are talked about quite a bit. Some were considered very very good, and some not so good, and some outright sinners. But, thru all of it, God still called them children of Israel, and if good, blessed them and if bad warned them by sending prophets. And yet, God promised He would not forget the children of Israel as long as the sun is in the sky, and would re-gather them in the land, and these future promises occurred right after he explained how hard hearted we were. You see. Actions never changed the fact that we were children of Israel, even when bad. We are better off when we are good and obedient, but even when not, we are still called children of Israel.

But, God is quite clear that He did not chose us because of some inherent goodness, or superiority. We are called the smallest and weakest and stiff necked in scripture.

aniello · Sep 18, 2012

Qnts2 said:
When reading various Church stances and commentaries, one thing to remember is that some of these teachings have been passed down with 'replacement theology' being the theology which is used when interpreting scripture. Having read a few of Matthew Henry's commentaries, he subscribed to replacement theology so his understanding and commentaries make certain assumptions which are not necessarily true.

Galatians 6 is written to Gentile believers who were being told to be circumcised, which of course is being discouraged. It was Jewish people who were coming into Galatia and trying to get the Gentiles circumcised.

This chapter is wrapped up with the statement
'16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.'. So, those who understand that circumcision is not something to boast on, speaking to the Gentiles, Paul prays for peace and mercy upon these Gentiles, and also on the Israel of God. Who is the Israel of God? Paul is now addressing a second group who are not Gentiles who understand what he is teaching. Paul is now blessing the 'Israel of God' which are children of Israel who have come to believe on Yeshua.

The Israel of God is the born again members of Israel. The distinction is needed because not all of Israel is saved. It would be similar to saying the Egyptians of God distinguishing that not all Egyptians are born again. Today, we might say the people and the Christian people to distinguish but much like Israel, not all who call themselves Christians are born again. The Israel of God today, are called Messianic Jews since it is more common for us to call ourselves Jews rather then Israelites, but Messianic Jews distinguishes the difference since we believe that the Messiah has come and He is Jesus.

As far as the difference between children of Abraham and children of Jacob, we can look at linage. Not all children of Abraham are children of Jacob. Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael. And Jacob was the child who received the blessing and birthright, not Esau. So to be a child of Israel means to be a child of Jacob. The promise of the land went first to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob and his children, so it is often said, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but all children of Jacob were children of Israel. Abraham received unique promises not passed on to Isaac and Jacob, that he would be the father of many nations. Jacob was the father on one nation, not many. Abraham was the fore-father of the Messiah.

It is into Abraham all beleivers are adopted. So, while the children of Esau will never be children of Jacob (Israel), the children of Esau can be children of Abraham by faith. Both physically descendents and spiritually by faith but it is only by faith that they inherit the spiritual promises. Of course the same with children of Ishmael. They are not children of Jacob (Israel) but are physically descendents of Abraham although not thru the child of the physical promises they are still physical descendents of Abraham. They can be children of the Spiritual promises by faith and become Spiritual children of Abraham. It is only the Spiritual children of Abraham who receive the Spiritual promises.

Very well and forthrightly stated. Thank you for the good work.

Gxg (G²) · Sep 18, 2012

Qnts2 said:
Since being an 'Israelite' means being a descendent of Israel/Jacob, actions really have little to do with it.

I don't have to act a particular way to be my mother and fathers child. I am simply by birth.

In the scriptures, the descendents of Jacob/Israel are talked about quite a bit. Some were considered very very good, and some not so good, and some outright sinners. But, thru all of it, God still called them children of Israel, and if good, blessed them and if bad warned them by sending prophets. And yet, God promised He would not forget the children of Israel as long as the sun is in the sky, and would re-gather them in the land, and these future promises occurred right after he explained how hard hearted we were.

Not according to what Christ often noted when making plain that being an Israelite was more than a matter of physical descent. Obvious is the case that one will never cease being an 'Israelite" based on their physical identity---but that doesn't equate to one living as an Israelite....just as it is the case that one who is a prince or princess of a royal family does not act like a royal family member. Prince Harry being an example of that amongst many others

Jeremiah 35 with the Rechabites and many others where the Lord DENOUCNED Israel/said where others walked out His covenant more than they did cannot be avoided.

One of the reasons why Christ/others noted plainly to the people who tried to use ancestry to show their legitimacy that it wasn't enough for one to belong physically.

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

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.

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.

Sadly, you have others (such as John Hagee) taking statements from Romans 11:25-26 (i.e., that all Israel will be saved) and other scriptures dealing with the Patriarchs/Root and assuming that to mean that most Jews are automatically saved in the name of Israel..and that ideology, Dual Covenant Theology, is a very deadly interpretation (more shared in here, here, here, here, here, here, here ). For more, there's an excellent article on the subject entitled Romans 1:18-25 Is Salvation Only Available for those who Profess Faith in Yeshua? - TNN Online. Additionally, apart from that, there're some good articles on the issue by John McKee that addresses what you noted earlier (concerning the claim that only physical sons of Jacob were considered "Israelites")....entitled "“One Law” as Replacement Theology - TNN Online and FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS C Commonwealth of Israel -TNN Online. Both address the ways many feel Gentiles in the movement seeking to live as believers who are physical descendants of Israel/Jacob are deemed to be taking what doesn't belong to them--and yet are often misunderstood when it comes to what Jacob/Israel represented.

You see. Actions never changed the fact that we were children of Israel, even when bad. We are better off when we are good and obedient, but even when not, we are still called children of Israel.

Actions will always determine a good deal, as many Messianic Jews have noted when arguing against universalism often promoted that says that all Israelites will be saved simply because they're Israel---a concept the Bible NEVER teaches, especially as it concerns the Remnant and the ways the Lord condmened those, be it Jew or Gentile, who went for idolatry.

But, God is quite clear that He did not chose us because of some inherent goodness, or superiority. We are called the smallest and weakest and stiff necked in scripture

Indeed

Lulav · Sep 18, 2012

Ahh, that I could totally agree with this too.

Qnts2 said:
When reading various Church stances and commentaries, one thing to remember is that some of these teachings have been passed down with 'replacement theology' being the theology which is used when interpreting scripture. Having read a few of Matthew Henry's commentaries, he subscribed to replacement theology so his understanding and commentaries make certain assumptions which are not necessarily true.

Most Protestant stances coming from the reformer, Martin Luther have this as a foundation. RT has been a foundational theology of the church almost since the beginning.

Qnts2 said:
Galatians 6 is written to Gentile believers who were being told to be circumcised, which of course is being discouraged. It was Jewish people who were coming into Galatia and trying to get the Gentiles circumcised.

I don't see where that would cause discouragement. To have to learn and keep all Torah immediately would though. And don't forget the women, would they be discouraged?
The 'Jewish people' that were coming into Galatia, were most likely in fact the leaders from Jerusalem. In the beginning of the letter it can clearly be seen that Paul is upset because those in Galatia had heard from the premier Apostles and were following their teachings and not Pauls.

Qnts2 said:
This chapter is wrapped up with the statement
'16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.'. So, those who understand that circumcision is not something to boast on, speaking to the Gentiles, Paul prays for peace and mercy upon these Gentiles, and also on the Israel of God. Who is the Israel of God? Paul is now addressing a second group who are not Gentiles who understand what he is teaching. Paul is now blessing the 'Israel of God' which are children of Israel who have come to believe on Yeshua.

Circumcision does not make one a slave, but is a token of the covenant. Yet this is what he is teaching, along with All Jews who stood at the mountain are slaves as well, and from an Egyptian mother cite. HaShem did not choose us to be slaves, but rather to take us out from slavery.

Qnts2 said:
The Israel of God is the born again members of Israel. The distinction is needed because not all of Israel is saved.

Am I understanding you correctly, that you believe that all Jews who do not yet believe in Yeshua as Messiah do not belong to G-d? Isn't this just saying what you posted against in your previous post? We belong to G-d, no matter what, good, bad and ugly, this was his promise.

Qnts2 said:
It would be similar to saying the Egyptians of God distinguishing that not all Egyptians are born again. Today, we might say the people and the Christian people to distinguish but much like Israel, not all who call themselves Christians are born again. The Israel of God today, are called Messianic Jews since it is more common for us to call ourselves Jews rather then Israelites, but Messianic Jews distinguishes the difference since we believe that the Messiah has come and He is Jesus.

So the Israel of G-d today consists of only born Jews that are born again Jews? :scratch:

Qnts2 said:
As far as the difference between children of Abraham and children of Jacob, we can look at linage. Not all children of Abraham are children of Jacob. Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael. And Jacob was the child who received the blessing and birthright, not Esau. So to be a child of Israel means to be a child of Jacob. The promise of the land went first to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob and his children, so it is often said, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but all children of Jacob were children of Israel. Abraham received unique promises not passed on to Isaac and Jacob, that he would be the father of many nations. Jacob was the father on one nation, not many. Abraham was the fore-father of the Messiah.

That is a quite convoluted statement. This is like a logic puzzle that cannot be solved.
Of course all children of Abraham cannot physically or logically be children of Jacob. And the child of Rebekkah, Esau is and will always be an enemy of Israel (Jacob) as it started in the womb.
The promise of the Land was told to Abraham, but was not given to him, only to his progeny through Isaac and through Isaac, to Jacob.
Abraham was also given commandments, statues and ordinances to follow that were singular, for him alone. He was the beginning of the line chosen (revealed) to bring Messiah. Actually Abraham became Abraham, because he didn't have faith that G-d could provide him with that promised Child. If he had, he would still be Abram, meaning 'exulted father', instead of the 'father of many nations'.

Qnts2 said:
It is into Abraham all beleivers are adopted. So, while the children of Esau will never be children of Jacob (Israel), the children of Esau can be children of Abraham by faith.

I know this is what is taught, but does it make sense? Why should anyone want to be adopted into Abraham? And Paul makes it clear in one case, that believers are adopted into the family through Yeshua. cite
The children of Esau are the children of Abraham already, he would be their great grandfather.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/ephesians/1-5.html

Qnts2 said:
Both physically descendents and spiritually by faith but it is only by faith that they inherit the spiritual promises. Of course the same with children of Ishmael. They are not children of Jacob (Israel) but are physically descendents of Abraham although not thru the child of the physical promises they are still physical descendents of Abraham. They can be children of the Spiritual promises by faith and become Spiritual children of Abraham. It is only the Spiritual children of Abraham who receive the Spiritual promises.

And what are these spiritual promises?

Gxg (G²) · Sep 18, 2012

Qnts2 said:
Actions never changed the fact that we were children of Israel, even when bad. We are better off when we are good and obedient, but even when not, we are still called children of Israel.

.

From what I've seen (and based on what I've learned from other Messianic Jews), there is no such concept in the scriptures that all Jews will be saved regardless based on the concept of God loving His children regardless....for tHe prophets nor the Torah ever supported such. That line of thought tends to venture into the realm of UNIVERSALISM where it is assumed that all will be saved---only the universalistic application is given for all Jews who assume being a physical descendant of Israel equates to being in the Kingdom/saved regardless rather than having the opportunity to not be saved at some point.

There was a reason why the Lord at one point divorced Israel/stated that in no uncertain terms ( Jeremiah 3:8-25 ), also echoed in Hosea 1:2-9...although scripture shows how the Prophets of the Old Testament prophesied that there would be a rupture of the bond and a suspension of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel which would be restored in the “latter days" and a new agreement made once improvement occurred. A careful and serious reading of the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Hosea (taking special note of Hosea 3:4-5, Isaiah 62:1-7, 65:16-25, 66:7-24 and Jermiah 3:8-25, 30:8-24) shows this to be true.

This goes into discussion of what Paul meant in light of the OT and what the concept "All Israel will be saved" really means. There was something from the ministry of "TNN Online"/John McKee tha seemed to be very relevant on the subject. For they're of the mindset that many Gentiles actually have Israelite blood in them and are apart of what Paul noted in Romans 11. As they stated---in their article entitled "The Two Houses of Israel: Biblical Passages That Deserve Our Attention" /seen here for a brief excerpt:

Some think that if you do not interpret “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:26) as meaning that every single Jew who has ever lived will come to Yeshua, that you are anti-Semitic. Too frequently, Messianic Jews I have interacted with do not consider me their equal on a basic human level—and could by no means imagine that the restoration of Israel only begins with the salvation of Jewish people, not ending there. This is by no means all Messianic Jews, but Messianic Judaism does have some issues it is presently wrestling with. .....Simply ask yourself the last time you really heard a fair-minded Messianic Jewish teaching on Romans chs. 1-3, where the Apostle Paul identifies sin as a common human problem, and he specifically refutes the idea that Jewish possession of the Torah in the First Century would curry any special favors on Judgment Day.....

The fullness of what Israel was to be is a theme picked up by Paul in his letter to the Romans, as he recognizes that the nations have been more receptive to the gospel than his own Jewish brethren. He says, “salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous” (Romans 11:11), and urges such non-Jewish Believers to not be arrogant against the natural branches that make up Israel’s olive tree (Romans 11:17-18), further stating that his own Jewish people have an irrevocable calling (Romans 11:29). Non-Jewish people who partake of a salvation originating in Israel have a great deal of respect to show the Jewish people. In God’s plan of salvation history, the Apostle Paul asserts that a mystery regarding Israel is at work:

“For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25).

The fact that Paul refers to this happening as a “mystery,” is an important clue that a simplistic explanation will not work. The entering in of “the fullness of the Gentiles” must occur within the overall framework of Israel’s salvation. Most of today’s interpreters of Romans 11:25 assume that Paul refers only to “the full number of the Gentiles” (RSV/NIV), based in a Calvinistic view of this being a set number of individual non-Jews predetermined by God for salvation. The fault of this view is that within Romans (11:12; 13:10; 15:29) and elsewhere in Paul’s letters (Ephesians 3:19; 4:13), plērōma (plhrwma) largely relates to “moral or spiritual consummation”—as opposed to it being the “full number” of anything

Non-Jewish Believers are required by Paul to be conduits of God’s mercy to Jews who have rejected the gospel (Romans 11:31), so “the fullness of the Gentiles” must involve some aspect of their spiritual character. Paul applies Tanach expectations regarding the salvation and forgiveness of Israel (Isaiah 59:20-21; Jeremiah 31:33) to the experience of these non-Jewish Believers in Romans 11:26-27, which would be odd if they were just non-Jewish Believers saved for no definite purpose. Could it be that once they have become the fullness of what Israel was called to be—namely a nation of priests that can be a light to the world (i.e., Exodus 19:5-6; Isaiah 42:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:9)—then the salvation of all Israel could finally be manifest? In order for this to happen, it would mean that non-Jewish Believers have to reach toward a trajectory of being “the fullness,” thus making the Jewish people jealous for salvation in Yeshua! This is something yet to fully happen.

How this involves the Two Houses of Israel is rather unique, as the description to plērōma tōn ethnōn (to plhrwma twn eqnwn) only appears in Romans 11:25. The closest Tanach equivalent appears in the Patriarch Jacob’s prophecy to his son Ephraim, where he says “his descendants shall become a multitude of nations” (Genesis 48:19). Ephraim, this melo ha’goyim (~yAGh-alm), would become a designation for the Northern Kingdom of Israel, being scattered into the nations via the punishment of Assyria. Because most of today’s Romans’ interpreters are so dominated by the common Reformed perspective of “the fullness of the Gentiles” involving some kind of predestination, it is almost impossible to find anyone who has explored this point of view. However, the great Methodist commentator Adam Clarke did once note,

“The words plhrwma twn eqnwn may be borrowed from the ~ywgh alm melo haggoyim, a multitude of nations, which the Septuagint translate by plhqoß eqnwn. By the plhrwma, or fullness, a great multitude may be intended, which should be so dilated on every hand as to fill various regions.”

The LXX did render melo ha’goyim with the slightly different plēthos ethnōn (plhqoß eqnwn) in Genesis 48:19, simply meaning a “multitude of nations” (LXE). The adaptation of Tanach quotations to make a theological point is not odd at all within the Pauline letters. His indication in Romans 11:25 that this is all a “mystery,” is a good clue as to why ton plērōma tōn ethnōn appears

It is not enough that a large scattered group of Israel out in the nations come back into the fold; they have a specific job to do that involves their maturation and being conduits of God’s mercy to the Jewish people. While “the fullness of the Gentiles” may first be a reference to the spiritual character of such people who will enter into the fold, a secondary reference to scattered Israel being involved in this can definitely be seen.

Paul also writes about God calling out a people “not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles” (Romans 9:24), the two groups of people that make up the “one new humanity” (Ephesians 2:15, NRSV/CJB). His substantiation for God’s calling of this unique people (Romans 9:25-26) is based in the prophecies of Hosea 2:23 and 1:10. God will say to them “You are My people!” (Hosea 2:23), in spite of them—“the sons of Israel”—being “like the sand of the sea” (Hosea 1:10) because of sin scattering them. This all concerns how “the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel will be gathered together” (Hosea 1:11) and restored by God. Paul goes on to say that “Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, ‘Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved’” (Romans 9:27; cf. Isaiah 10:22).

Here, we see Paul taking prophecies that involve the restoration of Israel, and applying them not only to Jewish Believers, but also to non-Jewish Believers. This only reinforces the fact that more was at work in the First Century than just the salvation of the nations. God’s bigger plan involved an in-process restoration of Israel—even if it is all a “mystery” that will have to be dissected in the eschaton and explained to us by the Lord Himself!

The Apostle Peter also saw no problems in quoting and applying Tanach prophecies that regarded the restoration of all Israel, to the salvation of the nations in his day. His first epistle was directed to a broad audience of Believers in Asia Minor (1 Peter 1:1), many of whom had specifically been involved in paganism: “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance” (1 Peter 1:14). This would be a definite indication of a large number of non-Jewish Believers as readers, as he further says, “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul” (1 Peter 2:11). He neither wants the former pagans among his audience, nor any Jewish Believers, to fall into sin. They are only sojourners in the world that are to reflect a different way of living.

Some of that I found interesting, though its not that much of a stretch since I do agree with aspects of Two-House theory that John Mckee advocates....and I definately think its more than possible that the "Israel" Paul is speaking of is in reference to the Remnant....those who will come to faith in the end times and be blessed by the Gentiles whom the Lord may use..

IMHO, It is difficult to say which mystery Paul is talking about when he says “this” mystery in Romans 11. He could be talking about the olive tree and God’s “kind and stern” actions toward his people. Or “this” could refer to what he is about to say regarding Israel’s hardening but eventually acceptance. In some ways, I think it mostly points forward to what Paul is explains later– and that's God’s plan to save Israel. That is, after all, what Paul is trying to explain all through chapters 9-11. The apostle Paul says God has planned the salvation of Israel in three steps – 1) hardening of some of the Jews, 2) acceptance of some Gentiles, 3) all Israel will be saved. At this point we have some issues that need to be wrestled with. When Paul writes that “all Israel will be saved” we either have to define Israel by a certain set of people in order to make that consistent with all Paul has said about the necessity of righteousness to come by faith in Christ.... or we have to assume all Jews will eventually put their faith in Christ, or that God is going to save them no matter what (which is not consistent with what Paul has written to this point in Romans).

Some people have wanted to say Paul is talking about “Spiritual Israel” here but that just doesn’t bear out through the context at all points...for it seems clear that Paul is talking about ethnic Jews here. Thus, either they all will eventually put their faith in Christ or Paul is defining Israel in a slightly different way than meaning every single person who is a direct descendent of Abraham.

It is beyond dispute that Paul and Jesus agree that not all ethnic Jews are actually children of Abraham (see John 8:39-41 & Romans 4:12).

Moreover, it has always been the case that God has called his people “Israel” when some Jews were not included in that number. Two places we see this in the OT are the concept of the remnant and also through blessings and curses in Deuteronomy..and for more on that, one can see the first paragraph in this post on Galatians 3:10-14. In Deuteronomy blessings and curses are repeatedly laid out before God’s people. The gist of it is, if you follow God and keep his commandments you will do well in the land. But if you double cross God and go your own way, you will be under a curse. This curse was basically considered a removal of the blessings of God and of covenant status with God.

Essentially, that basically would put an ethnic Jew out of “Israel” and into the same status as the Gentiles (who were also thought to be cursed and devoid of God’s blessings). Others may disagree, but my contention here when Paul says “all Israel will be saved” is that he is talking about “true Israelites” (as Jesus refered to Nathaniel as in John 1:47)…those who obeyed the law and were led by that law, as it was intended to do, to Jesus Christ. This does not mean every single Jew who ever lived will be saved and it does not mean that every single Jew will somehow get a second chance to believe in Jesus at the last day. It probably means faithful Jews will turn to Christ and be redeemed and that in some way, shape or form, there may be more of that to come than we realize.

Romans 11:26 could also mean that the physical Israeli State of today (or the future)/All Israelites who are NOT saved currently will later go through a great time of trial which will lead to much destruction--and yet those who remain will collectively turn to Yeshua together (just as it seems they collectively go AGAINST Yeshua currently aggressively in disbelief)...and when all the Jews left colletively repent, the Lord will save them---thus fulfilling the prophesy that "All Israel will be saved."

yedida · Sep 18, 2012

Easy G (G²);61410382 said:
Not according to what Christ often noted when making plain that being an Israelite was more than a matter of physical descent. Obvious is the case that one will never cease being an 'Israelite" based on their physical identity---but that doesn't equate to one living as an Israelite....just as it is the case that one who is a prince or princess of a royal family does not act like a royal family member. Prince Harry being an example of that amongst many others Jeremiah 35 with the Rechabites and many others where the Lord DENOUCNED Israel/said where others walked out His covenant more than they did cannot be avoided.

One of the reasons why Christ/others noted plainly to the people who tried to use ancestry to show their legitimacy that it wasn't enough for one to belong physically.

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 Abrahams 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 Gods children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abrahams offspring.
Romans 9:7-9

Actions will always determine a good deal, as many Messianic Jews have noted when arguing against universalism often promoted that says that all Israelites will be saved simply because they're Israel---a concept the Bible NEVER teaches, especially as it concerns the Remnant and the ways the Lord condmened those, be it Jew or Gentile, who went for idolatry.

Indeed

Re-read what Qnts said.

Gxg (G²) · Sep 18, 2012

Qnts2 said:
When reading various Church stances and commentaries, one thing to remember is that some of these teachings have been passed down with 'replacement theology' being the theology which is used when interpreting scripture.

Having read a few of Matthew Henry's commentaries, he subscribed to replacement theology so his understanding and commentaries make certain assumptions which are not necessarily true.

Along with that would need to be an understanding that not all teachings were passed down with replacement theology in view during interpretation. There were many who may've found agreement with others as it concerns Israel at certain points, yet the language they used had differing applications when it came to others not going with replacement theology. Having read a few of Matthew Henry's commentaries, it is always interesting how others not for replacement theology have either referenced him or said things similar and made clear where they differed.

Galatians 6 is written to Gentile believers who were being told to be circumcised, which of course is being discouraged. It was Jewish people who were coming into Galatia and trying to get the Gentiles circumcised.

This chapter is wrapped up with the statement '16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.'. So, those who understand that circumcision is not something to boast on, speaking to the Gentiles, Paul prays for peace and mercy upon these Gentiles, and also on the Israel of God. Who is the Israel of God? Paul is now addressing a second group who are not Gentiles who understand what he is teaching. Paul is now blessing the 'Israel of God' which are children of Israel who have come to believe on Yeshua.

The Israel of God is the born again members of Israel. The distinction is needed because not all of Israel is saved. It would be similar to saying the Egyptians of God distinguishing that not all Egyptians are born again. Today, we might say the people and the Christian people to distinguish but much like Israel, not all who call themselves Christians are born again. The Israel of God today, are called Messianic Jews since it is more common for us to call ourselves Jews rather then Israelites, but Messianic Jews distinguishes the difference since we believe that the Messiah has come and He is Jesus.

One would need to have more explict evidence in the text to assume that Paul was speaking to a seperate group of people when saying "the Israel of God"...specifically in showing that the Church Paul ministered to in the context of the Book of Galatians/its audience were Jewish to begin with. It'd be like one making a letter to Hispanics saying "Blessings be upon them and the Servants of God"---as one would not need to assume that "Servants of God" must automacally be a group apart from the Hispanics when the letter was written to encourage the Hispanics as belonging to the Lord. The additionally aspect and use of "and" would be to mean something additional about the former group.

As far as the difference between children of Abraham and children of Jacob, we can look at linage. Not all children of Abraham are children of Jacob. Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael. And Jacob was the child who received the blessing and birthright, not Esau. So to be a child of Israel means to be a child of Jacob. The promise of the land went first to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob and his children, so it is often said, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but all children of Jacob were children of Israel. Abraham received unique promises not passed on to Isaac and Jacob, that he would be the father of many nations. Jacob was the father on one nation, not many. Abraham was the fore-father of the Messiah.

It is into Abraham all beleivers are adopted. So, while the children of Esau will never be children of Jacob (Israel), the children of Esau can be children of Abraham by faith.

IMHO, what needs to be considered is the many times believers apart from Israel already came from other nations. Caleb, in example, who helped Joshua lead the people of the Lord came from the Line of Esau (more discussed here in#23 andsaid here )---not Jacob. one need to go no further than to examine the blood ties between the lines of Easu and Issac. is how the Blood Ties between Esau and Jacob/Israel can be seen in a myriad of ways that are quite stunning. For in the time of the Exodus the Israelites had some peoples from other nations amongst them. They were a mixed multitude--and it seems that Caleb, though listed as coming from Judah, was most likely adopted into Judah. This is said in light of how he was from Kenez from Edom.

Genesis 36:11 And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz.

Genesis 36:15 These [were] dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn [son] of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz,

Genesis 36:42 Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar,

The same issue of adoption goes Joseph's Egyptian sons who were adopted by Jacob into His line ( more shared here in #40 )and even with Ishmael and others who were NOT apart of the physical descent from Jacob, there were others who were often apart of Israel/God's blessings due to their own faith in the Lord. There are again differences between Abraham and Jacob on certain points---but Jacob is ultimately not considered seperate from Abraham as it concerns the ultimate blessings that made the nation of Israel possible to begin with. Some may say that identifying others who were not physical sons of Jacob as being apart of Israel (as was the case with Caleb) must mean that Gentiles are Jews...or they may say ignore the issue of physical distinctions between Gentiles and Jews. This goes into the issue of establishing that there is something to be said on how just because one may not be ethnically "Jewish" doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot live a lifestyle of a Jew.....as there were many who did just that when it came to having a background of mixed origins (i.e. Caleb, descended from Easu's line, or Joshua who had an Egyptian mother alongside a Hebrew father, Ruth, etc). Paul noted the same dynamics in Romans 2 when he noted that those who were Jews outwardly were not necessarily Jews inwardly if/when they rejected the Lord....while those who did not have the Law could be considered "Jew" when they obeyed the Law upon their hearts by the Lord. For being Jewish was always about lifestyle ultimately rather than ethnicity solely.

John 8 brings home the point further when many Jews claimed to be children of Abraham due to their ethnic heritage while they mocked Chist....and yet CHRIST noted "If you were children of Abraham, you would do what Abraham did." He did not deny their ethnic relationship, as that can never be changed...but as it concerned sonship in relation to looking like Abraham in His own walk, some things were missing. ..going so far as to say "You imitate your father, the Devil, since you seek to murder me." There seemed to be a DUAL reality present where one could be considered a "son"/representative in one sense while not fully representing in other ways.

Further evidence of how even the Gentiles could in some ways become "Jewish" (in my understanding) is seen in the OT...if recalling what seemed to have occurred in Acts 8:26-40 with the Ethopian Eunuch. For the sake of background, Ethopia was located in Africa south of Egypt. The Eunuch was obviously very dedicated to God because he had traveled such a long distance to worship in Jerusalem. The Jews had contact with Ethopia in ancient days (Psalm 68:31, Jeremiah 38:6-13, Jeremiahs 39:15-18, etc)---and thus, this man may have been a Gentile convert to Judaism. Because he was the treasurer of Ethopia, his conversion brought Christianity into the power structures of another government. This was the beginning of the witness "to the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8, Isaiah 56:3-5). As seen in Acts 8:29-35, Philip found the Ethiopian man reading the scriptures and explained the Gospel by asking the man if he understood what he was reading.....following the Spirit's leading and beginning discussion from where the man was (immersed in the prophecies of Isaiah). In the process of coversation, the man was shown by Phillip how Christ fulfilled Isaiah's prophecies...with the conversation starting with the eunuch begging Phillip to explain a passage of Scripture which he did not understand. Once the task was over, Philip was suddenly transported o a different city.....but God sent his messengers to those who were after Him.

As a eunuch, the Ethopian would have been barred from the inner courts of the temple, which makes his reading "the prophet Isaiah" (v.28) especially significant ...for Isaiah held out the promise that God would grant eunuchs (alongside Gentiles wishing to do so) a heritage "better than sons and daughters" (Isaiah 56:3-5):

Isaiah 56

Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.”

And let no eunuch complain,
“I am only a dry tree.”

4 For this is what the Lord says:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me
and hold fast to my covenant —
5 to them I will give within my temple and its walls
a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.

6 And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him, to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—7 these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.

There seems to be a theme within scripture that Gentiles wishing to do so, as it concerns love/living the lifestyle called of Jews, have the blessing of the Lord to do so...

Nontheless, there was also a theme within scripture where it seemed the Lord did not have an issue with Gentiles remaining as they are. Even with the earlier example of the Eunuch of Ethopia, there were many Gentiles of African descent within the scriptures who did not do as he did. One example is EBED-MELECH, the Ethopian/black man who rescued Jeremiah from the dungeon/pit he was trapped in and was praised by the Lord for it(Jeremiah 38, Jeremiah 39 ). He was a a Gentile servant, politically disenfranchised, excluded by reason of his emasculation from "the congregation of the LORD" (Deuteronomy 23:1)...and yet when he lived in nation of Jews/Israelites that refused to obey the Lord, he did what was expected of the Lord for Jews to do. And although he did the true spirit of what the Torah commanded by saving life, he was still seen as a Gentile. Yet the Lord blessed him.

Jeremiah 39:8
While Jeremiah had been confined in the courtyard of the guard, the word of the Lord came to him: 16 “Go and tell Ebed-Melek the Cushite, ‘This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: I am about to fulfill my words against this city—words concerning disaster, not prosperity. At that time they will be fulfilled before your eyes. 17 But I will rescue you on that day, declares the Lord; you will not be given into the hands of those you fear. 18 I will save you; you will not fall by the sword but will escape with your life, because you trust in me, declares the Lord.’”

Paul also seemed to bring up the same point later in Romans 15, in continuation of his explaining the unique role that Gentiles had to play alongside the Jews, with neither becoming the other/replacing them...and the Lord often noting how He loved Gentiles as they were trusting in Him ( #35 ):

Romans 15:21
Paul’s Plan to Visit Rome

23 But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, 24 I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. 25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. 26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. 27 They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. 28 So after I have completed this task and have made sure that they have received this contribution, I will go to Spain and visit you on the way

Both physically descendents and spiritually by faith but it is only by faith that they inherit the spiritual promises. Of course the same with children of Ishmael. They are not children of Jacob (Israel) but are physically descendents of Abraham although not thru the child of the physical promises they are still physical descendents of Abraham.

With Ishmael/his line, they had a covenant with the Lord of a differing kind than those of Jacob--even though both are united in faith in Messiah (more shared here )

They can be children of the Spiritual promises by faith and become Spiritual children of Abraham. It is only the Spiritual children of Abraham who receive the Spiritual promises.

Spiritual children have also recieved physcal promises of Abraham as well.

Shalom

Gxg (G²) · Sep 18, 2012

yedida said:
Re-read what Qnts said.

SHalom, y

I did re-read what was said...and IMHO, I think it'd beneficial to re-read what Jesus said in John 8 when it came to how He defined being a "child of God" .....

John 8:28
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.[b]”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me!46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

Jesus’ Claims About Himself

48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”

49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”

52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

What Christ said (in addition to the prophets) is to take precedence...and what they advocated was conditional acceptance, be it for Jew or Gentiles. The only other option is universalism saying all Jews will be saved regardless under the claim that they are Israel--and that's not Biblical when it comes to the multiple times the Lord made distinction between those who are physical descendants of Israel only and those who are believers/truly living up to what it means to be Israel (the Remnant of Israel/Jews), with those in that camp being who will be saved/always in relationship with the Lord.

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. As said before, 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..

For more:

There are many others who do not adhere to the evil of Replacement Theology and yet have noted the reality of where even people of Israel have been deemed by the Lord to be of the enemy side that will perish apart from Messiah. To see for oneself, one can go online/check out an article under the name of "The Naked Bible >> The Election of Israel and Its Meaning, Part 1" and "The Naked Bible >> Romans 5:12 and Universalism: Applying My Take on Romans 5:12 to the Problem" ().

Apart from that, some others that you may be interested in---as it concerns the variety of quasi-universalism when it comes to the issue of "All Israel will saved" and none being able to not be called "children of the enemy":

"All Israel Will Be Saved" ()

"The Other Gospel of John Hagee: CHRISTIAN ZIONISM AND ETHNIC SALVATION"

mercy1061 · Sep 18, 2012

This is a beautiful dialogue between you and EasyG...

When reading various Church stances and commentaries, one thing to remember is that some of these teachings have been passed down with 'replacement theology' being the theology which is used when interpreting scripture. Having read a few of Matthew Henry's commentaries, he subscribed to replacement theology so his understanding and commentaries make certain assumptions which are not necessarily true.

Abraham did "replace" Isaac with the ram caught in the bush. I know many would maintain the position that Abraham obeyed the angel's voice when he did this; the angel told Abraham to not harm the boy, not to replace the sacrifice. In fact, "living sacrifices" were never bound or slain before being burned alive. The three hebrew boys were thrown into the fire, and those that put them into the fire were consumed. The three hebrew boys remained in the fire, both alive and free. I am glad they were not killed before being thrown into the fire to made holy for service to YHWH. Let us review Pharisee Shaul's letter to the romans:

Rom 12:1

I exhort you, therefore, brothers, in view of God’s mercies, to offer yourselves as a sacrifice, living and set apart for God. This will please him; it is the logical “Temple worship” for you.

Galatians 6 is written to Gentile believers who were being told to be circumcised, which of course is being discouraged. It was Jewish people who were coming into Galatia and trying to get the Gentiles circumcised.

This chapter is wrapped up with the statement
'16 And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.'. So, those who understand that circumcision is not something to boast on, speaking to the Gentiles, Paul prays for peace and mercy upon these Gentiles, and also on the Israel of God. Who is the Israel of God? Paul is now addressing a second group who are not Gentiles who understand what he is teaching. Paul is now blessing the 'Israel of God' which are children of Israel who have come to believe on Yeshua.

Well the gentiles needed to understand the importance of circumcision, and how it should be performed in secret, not a public ceremony like baptism. Circumcision, although done outwardly, is a inward or personal matter of the heart. The law not only required outward circumcison but also circumcision of the heart. The Spirit compelled Abraham to become circumcised, circumcise Ishmael, all the male servants bought with Abraham's money; only Isaac living in Abraham's house would be circumcised on the 8th day, everlasting covenant was established in Isaac.

The Israel of God is the born again members of Israel. The distinction is needed because not all of Israel is saved. It would be similar to saying the Egyptians of God distinguishing that not all Egyptians are born again. Today, we might say the people and the Christian people to distinguish but much like Israel, not all who call themselves Christians are born again. The Israel of God today, are called Messianic Jews since it is more common for us to call ourselves Jews rather then Israelites, but Messianic Jews distinguishes the difference since we believe that the Messiah has come and He is Jesus.

Many times salvation of Israel, meant deliverance from slavery or from her enemies. In other words, the natural application must be understood, before any spiritual revelation can be understood.

As far as the difference between children of Abraham and children of Jacob, we can look at linage. Not all children of Abraham are children of Jacob. Isaac was the child of promise, not Ishmael. And Jacob was the child who received the blessing and birthright, not Esau. So to be a child of Israel means to be a child of Jacob. The promise of the land went first to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob and his children, so it is often said, the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but all children of Jacob were children of Israel. Abraham received unique promises not passed on to Isaac and Jacob, that he would be the father of many nations. Jacob was the father on one nation, not many. Abraham was the fore-father of the Messiah.

There is certainly a difference between the sons of Abraham and the sons of Jacob, however they both belong to the family of Israel. Ishmael is Jacob's uncle. Ishmael was born the common way, Isaac was born by the power of the Spirit. Sarah has only one son; she was barren most of her life, probably because she was Abraham's sister or niece. Isaac should not have been born considering the circumstances. Jacob was Rebekah's firstborn; although Esau came out the womb first. The blessings of the firstborn must always be given to the oldest son, not the son who leaves the womb first. Esau and Jacob were born about the same time, Ishmael was the firstborn from the bondservant, Isaac the firstborn from Sarah the free woman. We know that those who are free have more privledges than those living in bondage. Abraham did bind Isaac on the altar, then sought to kill him. The angel from heaven told Abraham to do Isaac no harm.

It is into Abraham all beleivers are adopted. So, while the children of Esau will never be children of Jacob (Israel), the children of Esau can be children of Abraham by faith. Both physically descendents and spiritually by faith but it is only by faith that they inherit the spiritual promises. Of course the same with children of Ishmael. They are not children of Jacob (Israel) but are physically descendents of Abraham although not thru the child of the physical promises they are still physical descendents of Abraham. They can be children of the Spiritual promises by faith and become Spiritual children of Abraham. It is only the Spiritual children of Abraham who receive the Spiritual promises.

"The elder shall teach the younger", Jacob taught Esau to serve. Abraham prayed for Ishmael, YHWH promised to bless Ishmael their uncle.

Gxg (G²) · Sep 18, 2012

mercy1061 said:
"The elder shall teach the younger", Jacob taught Esau to serve. Abraham prayed for Ishmael, YHWH promised to bless Ishmael their uncle.

Although you said more than this, this was a very excellent point that should be noted (IMHO). For many read the text of scripture assuming that all of Esau must be hated by the Lord without qualification and claim that anyone of Esau is cursed...yet the scriptures note where even Esau learned to grow in his relationship with the Lord and his brother, whom he forgave for stealing his birthright/blessing and served humbly when they reconciled----and many of Esau's descendants also were used of the Lord. Moreover, Easu was not cursed fully as many assume and (as said earlier) one of the Sons of Esau (Caleb) was blessed, as were many others..more discussed in, here and here.

Edomites, interestingly enough, had a Covenant with the Lord that he honored. Some of this I've been realizing more and more after studying the Book of Genesis and seeing the line of Easu in action. For Issac's attempt to bless Esau in Genesis 27:1-45 was subverted by Rebekah, who favored Jacob and helped him recieve the blessing of the firstborn.....though that event only builds on the earlier incident where Esau sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25:29-34) alongside confirming the earlier incident where the divine statement was made in Genesis 25:23 that the older will serve the younger.

Genesis 27:39-40 |Full Chapter

Then Isaac his father answered and said to him, "Behold, away from the fertility of the earth shall be your dwelling, And away from the dew of heaven from above. "By your sword you shall live, And your brother you shall serve; But it shall come about when you become restless, That you will break his yoke from your neck."
(Genesis 27:39-40, NASB)

The blessing Issac gave to Easu in Genesis 27:39-40 may seem like a curse at first glance...but in many ways, it seems to be a blessing that is meant to be like a "counter-measure" toward his brother. It was much like a Consolation prize of sorts (i.e. an award given to those who do not win an event but are deserving of recognition). For although Jacob was given authority over his older twin brother, Isaac indicates/pronounces that Esau will eventually free himself from his brother's control....and later, Esau's descendants settle outside the Promised Land, to the east of the Jordan River, eventually taking control of Seir, which is later named "Edom"..as seen in Genesis 36:1-42 (I Chronicles 1:51-54), with the geneology of Easu. His sons and grandsons produced 14 chiefs, and a number of kings emerged from among Esau's descendants.

According to Genesis 27:39-40, Esau was given a blessing by his father (empowered through the Lord) that would ensure his survival. Essentially, according to the blessing, Esau would have no success tilling the ground or growing vineyards and so implies that he would likely live in the dessert areas of the land. On Esau and his descendants, the blessing of "living by his sword" is often seen as a negative---but in many ways, it was a positive since it was a warrior's blessing. He would truly live/have life by means of the sword...and his descendants may or may not prosper from the land, but they would not starve, as they would have the power to either hunt or take game from others.

As another said best:

One of the key points in the blessing of Jacob is that he would “be master of [his] brothers” (Genesis 27:29, NASB). Isaac, who is apparently too far gone to figure out with which of his kids he is talking, must remember this element of the blessing, because his blessing of Esau includes such an acknowledgement.

The blessing also says that Esau and his descendents will live with some trying elements. In particular, they will not live on particularly fertile land, and that they will have to be warriors. This isn’t all bad. First, the quality of Esau’s (and Jacob’s for that matter) is never mentioned. Happiness is not the concern of this blessing, but rather material success. Ability, likewise, is not mentioned. So, Esau’s father has not cursed him to unhappiness; I could say that he has rather blessed Esau with an alternative. “Life will have some difficulties, son, but you can thrive in this situation.” For Esau, survival by sword, instead of agriculture, might well be a blessing.

But there’s yet one more huge element. “It shall come about,” says Isaac, “when you become restless, That you will break his yoke from your neck.” Life, yes, will be full of challenges. Subject of your younger brother, your success will not be as easy. And, yes, you will even accept this for a time. But only for a time. There’s always the temptation to cry out “How long?” The Bible has several instances of this question. But there’s also the hope that what Esau lost by his foolishness will be ultimately restored.

As seen in Deuteronomy 2:1-1-8, the nation of Edom--descended from Esau (Genesis 25:30, Genesis 32:3, Genesis 36:1)---were people whom the Lord warned Israel not to provoke due to the blood relationships through Esau. And the Lord told the Israelites directly that certain land was given strictly to Edom due to the covenant/kind of relationship they had with the Lord ( Genesis 36:8-10, )

Numbers 20:14-21 also gives more in-depth information....concerning how the the Edomite/Israelite relations often were one of tension, if not bitter hostility, as seen in how the Edomites denied passage through their land to Israel. At that time, apparently, they were afaid that the Israelities--known to be a great horde of people--would either attack them or devour their crops (Deuteronomy 2:4-5, Deuteronomy 2:3-5 / Deuteronomy 2 ) and thus they did not trust Israel's word.

And yet despite that, the Israelites were commanded not to attack/hate the Edomites:

Deuteronomy 23:7
Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country.
Deuteronomy 23:6-8

Deuteronomy 2:5
Do not provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to put your foot on. I have given Esau the hill country of Seir as his own.
Deuteronomy 2:4-6 (

Nothing further is recorded of the Edomites in the Tanakh until their defeat by King Saul of Israel in the late 11th century BC ( 1 Samuel 14:46-48 ). 1 Samuel 21:6-8 mentions Doeg the Edomite , later seen in I Samuel 22:9-22....the man who betrayed David and killed the priests of Nob and committed an act that Saul's Israelite servants refused to do. David later spoke sharply against it in Psalm 52 when condeming Doeg for thinking of himself as a great hero in the deed he committed.

Forty years later King David and his general Joab defeated the Edomites in the "valley of salt", (probably near the Dead Sea) in 2 Samuel 8:12-14 and I Chronicles 18:12. It was at that time that an Edomite prince named Hadad escaped and fled to Egypt, and after David's death returned and tried to start a rebellion (I Kings 11:14-22), but failed and went to Syria. From that time Edom remained a vassal of Israel. David placed over the Edomites Israelite governors or prefects, and this form of government seems to have continued under Solomon. When Israel divided into two kingdoms Edom became a dependency of the Kingdom of Judah. I Kings 22:47 is a great place to go for further information on the issue. In the time of Jehoshaphat (c. 914 BC) the Tanakh mentions a king of Edom ( II Kings 3:7-9 ), who was probably an Israelite appointed by the King of Judah. It also states that the inhabitants of Mount Seir invaded Judea in conjunction with Ammon and Moab, and that the invaders turned against one another and were all destroyed. Edom revolted against Jehoram and elected a king of its own. Amaziah attacked and defeated the Edomites, seizing Selah, but the Israelites never subdued Edom completely. 2 Kings 8:20-22 and 2 Kings 16:5-7 is also a place where one can go for further information. As it turns out, the Edomites aided the enemies of Israel in conquering them in the time they were in rebellion ( 2 Chronicles 28:16-18 , Psalm 137:6-8 )---and the prophets spoke out against Edom ( Isaiah 21:10-12, Isaiah 34:8-10 , Jeremiah 49:16-18 , Ezekiel 25:11-13 , Ezekiel 35:14-15, Ezekiel 36:4-6 , Joel 3:18-20, Amos 1:10-12, Amos 2:1-3, Obadiah 1:7-9, Malachi 1:1-5 )

But in the Lord's disciplining of Edom, it doesn't seem to say that all Edomites were forever wiped out. The viewpoint noted by many is that they became the Idumeans, who later were absorbed into much of the other cultures. According to Josephus (Antiquities XIII, 9, 1), the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus (Hyrcanus I) "conquered in Idumea the cities of Adora [Adoraim] and Marisa [Maresha] and subjected all the Idumeans [Edomites]. He allowed them to stay in the land, however, if they were willing to introduce circumcision and live by the other Jewish laws. In truth, out of love for their homeland they accepted circumcision with the other Jewish customs and were henceforth likewise Jewish."

This account has lately been qualified by Peter Richardson, pp. 54-62, following Aryeh Kasher, pp. 46-78: the Edomites already performed circumcision on their own, but indeed the cities of Adora and Marisa had become so thoroughly hellenized that their citizens had given up the practice. Josephus's account applies to these cities only. There are indications in Strabo and Ptolemy that Idumea was peacefully annexed by Hyrcanus. Many Idumeans (already circumcised) accepted Judaism voluntarily (partly, perhaps, in response to the missionary fervor of the Hasmonean revivalists), while others kept their old religion without leaving. Among the converts was a man who would be Herod's paternal grandfather. The descendants of the converts were caught, it would seem, between two identities. Josephus reports on Costobar, Herod's brother in law (the name is constructed with that of Cos, the chief Edomite God). Descended from priests of Cos, he hoped to lead his fellow Idumeans to independence from the Jews and Jewish customs. On the other hand, Josephus also reports on Idumeans who gave strong support to their fellow Jews in the first revolt against Rome. ...more here.

As it concerns other descendants of Edom/Easu were blessed, it can be problematic for one to make sweeping statements as if everything of Esau was automatically a bad thing. For a good read, one can investigate The Edomites: their history as gathered from the Holy Scriptures ...

Just as it was the case that the Lord blessed others who were of Edom (as opposed to some of the more racist commentary by many saying all Edomites were "cursed"/hated), the Lord also showed Himself as being concerned for Ishmael.... whom many continually assume was "cursed"/not blessed of the Lord despite the fact that the Lord gave Isaac the Blessing of a Covenant while He gave Ishmael the Promise of a Blessing (one mirroring what Jacob had, from 12 nations just like 12 tribes of Israel to being prosperous and the Lord being with him..more discussed here and here ). Many from the line of Ishmael were used of the Lord to protect His people/Messiah throughout the OT/NT--with some interesting examples being Amasa (who as an Ishmaelite/married into David's family ( 2 Samuel 17:24-26/2 Samuel 19:12-14 /1 Kings 2:4-6/1 Kings 2:31-33 /1 Chronicles 2:16-18 ), Jaziz the Hagrite (who took care of David's flocks, per 1 Chronicles 27:30-32 ) and Obil the Ishmaelite (who stewared the Camels of David, 1 Chronicles 27:29-31 ) as quick examples (while other Jewish believers named their children "Ishmael", per 2 Chronicles 19:10-11 /2 Chronicles 23:1-3 /Ezra 10:21-23 ).....and with the sons of Ishmael/Isaac oday, they're still being united today in the Lord

Arab leads Jews in worship - Amazing
Israelis and Palestinians Make Peace
Jews and Arabs Washing Each Other's Feet
Israeli Arabs and Jews share the Lord's supper

Arab and Jewish Believers singing and dancing together

Jewish believers and Arab Christians wash each others feet

Jewish believers and Arab Christians seek forgiveness from one another

Gxg (G²) · Sep 18, 2012

mercy1061 said:
There is certainly a difference between the sons of Abraham and the sons of Jacob, however they both belong to the family of Israel..

Indeed. All apart of the family of Messiah

Qnts2 · Sep 19, 2012

Easy G (G²);61410495 said:
One would need to have more explict evidence in the text to assume that Paul was speaking to a seperate group of people when saying "the Israel of God"...specifically in showing that the Church Paul ministered to in the context of the Book of Galatians/its audience were Jewish to begin with. It'd be like one making a letter to Hispanics saying "Blessings be upon them and the Servants of God"---as one would not need to assume that "Servants of God" must automacally be a group apart from the Hispanics when the letter was written to encourage the Hispanics as belonging to the Lord. The additionally aspect and use of "and" would be to mean something additional about the former group.

In my view, if Paul was speaking to Hispanics and sald blessing to them (all Hispanics) and the Servants of God, the first would be blessing all Hispanics and the second would be a subset of Hispanics who were Servants of God. But what Paul said was actually much more specific. He is talking to people who believe his teaching concerning circumcision. He blessed those Gentile who believed his teaching (and therefore would not become circumcised), and he blessed the believing born again children of Israel who also accepted his teaching, that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. Again, it was the Jewish people who were teaching to be a part of Gods people, they needed to be circumcised. Physical circumcision was a requirement to be counted among the children of Israel.

Genesis 17:14 But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.

Therefore, there are two different groups, born again Gentiles who believed what Paul was teaching, and born again Jewish people who believed what Paul was teaching, that Gentiles did not need circumcision to be a full member of the born again assembly. Paul blessed both.

Easy G (G²) said:
IMHO, what needs to be considered is the many times believers apart from Israel already came from other nations. Caleb, in example, who helped Joshua lead the people of the Lord came from the Line of Esau (more discussed here in#23 andsaid here )---not Jacob. one need to go no further than to examine the blood ties between the lines of Easu and Issac. is how the Blood Ties between Esau and Jacob/Israel can be seen in a myriad of ways that are quite stunning. For in the time of the Exodus the Israelites had some peoples from other nations amongst them. They were a mixed multitude--and it seems that Caleb, though listed as coming from Judah, was most likely adopted into Judah. This is said in light of how he was from Kenez from Edom.

Genesis 36:11 And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz.

Genesis 36:15 These [were] dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn [son] of Esau; duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz,

Genesis 36:42 Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar,

The same issue of adoption goes Joseph's Egyptian sons who were adopted by Jacob into His line ( more shared here in #40 )and even with Ishmael and others who were NOT apart of the physical descent from Jacob, there were others who were often apart of Israel/God's blessings due to their own faith in the Lord. There are again differences between Abraham and Jacob on certain points---but Jacob is ultimately not considered seperate from Abraham as it concerns the ultimate blessings that made the nation of Israel possible to begin with. Some may say that identifying others who were not physical sons of Jacob as being apart of Israel (as was the case with Caleb) must mean that Gentiles are Jews...or they may say ignore the issue of physical distinctions between Gentiles and Jews. This goes into the issue of establishing that there is something to be said on how just because one may not be ethnically "Jewish" doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot live a lifestyle of a Jew.....as there were many who did just that when it came to having a background of mixed origins (i.e. Caleb, descended from Easu's line, or Joshua who had an Egyptian mother alongside a Hebrew father, Ruth, etc). Paul noted the same dynamics in Romans 2 when he noted that those who were Jews outwardly were not necessarily Jews inwardly if/when they rejected the Lord....while those who did not have the Law could be considered "Jew" when they obeyed the Law upon their hearts by the Lord. For being Jewish was always about lifestyle ultimately rather than ethnicity solely.

John 8 brings home the point further when many Jews claimed to be children of Abraham due to their ethnic heritage while they mocked Chist....and yet CHRIST noted "If you were children of Abraham, you would do what Abraham did." He did not deny their ethnic relationship, as that can never be changed...but as it concerned sonship in relation to looking like Abraham in His own walk, some things were missing. ..going so far as to say "You imitate your father, the Devil, since you seek to murder me." There seemed to be a DUAL reality present where one could be considered a "son"/representative in one sense while not fully representing in other ways.

Further evidence of how even the Gentiles could in some ways become "Jewish" (in my understanding) is seen in the OT...if recalling what seemed to have occurred in Acts 8:26-40 with the Ethopian Eunuch. For the sake of background, Ethopia was located in Africa south of Egypt. The Eunuch was obviously very dedicated to God because he had traveled such a long distance to worship in Jerusalem. The Jews had contact with Ethopia in ancient days (Psalm 68:31, Jeremiah 38:6-13, Jeremiahs 39:15-18, etc)---and thus, this man may have been a Gentile convert to Judaism. Because he was the treasurer of Ethopia, his conversion brought Christianity into the power structures of another government. This was the beginning of the witness "to the uttermost part of the earth" (Acts 1:8, Isaiah 56:3-5). As seen in Acts 8:29-35, Philip found the Ethiopian man reading the scriptures and explained the Gospel by asking the man if he understood what he was reading.....following the Spirit's leading and beginning discussion from where the man was (immersed in the prophecies of Isaiah). In the process of coversation, the man was shown by Phillip how Christ fulfilled Isaiah's prophecies...with the conversation starting with the eunuch begging Phillip to explain a passage of Scripture which he did not understand. Once the task was over, Philip was suddenly transported o a different city.....but God sent his messengers to those who were after Him.

As a eunuch, the Ethopian would have been barred from the inner courts of the temple, which makes his reading "the prophet Isaiah" (v.28) especially significant ...for Isaiah held out the promise that God would grant eunuchs (alongside Gentiles wishing to do so) a heritage "better than sons and daughters" (Isaiah 56:3-5):

There seems to be a theme within scripture that Gentiles wishing to do so, as it concerns love/living the lifestyle called of Jews, have the blessing of the Lord to do so...

Nontheless, there was also a theme within scripture where it seemed the Lord did not have an issue with Gentiles remaining as they are. Even with the earlier example of the Eunuch of Ethopia, there were many Gentiles of African descent within the scriptures who did not do as he did. One example is EBED-MELECH, the Ethopian/black man who rescued Jeremiah from the dungeon/pit he was trapped in and was praised by the Lord for it(Jeremiah 38, Jeremiah 39 ). He was a a Gentile servant, politically disenfranchised, excluded by reason of his emasculation from "the congregation of the LORD" (Deuteronomy 23:1)...and yet when he lived in nation of Jews/Israelites that refused to obey the Lord, he did what was expected of the Lord for Jews to do. And although he did the true spirit of what the Torah commanded by saving life, he was still seen as a Gentile. Yet the Lord blessed him.

Paul also seemed to bring up the same point later in Romans 15, in continuation of his explaining the unique role that Gentiles had to play alongside the Jews, with neither becoming the other/replacing them...and the Lord often noting how He loved Gentiles as they were trusting in Him ( #35 ):

With Ishmael/his line, they had a covenant with the Lord of a differing kind than those of Jacob--even though both are united in faith in Messiah (more shared here )
Spiritual children have also recieved physcal promises of Abraham as well.

Shalom

Accepted generally, if the mother is Jewish means the child is Jewish (a child of Israel) although some say both parents and others say fathers. So, being a child of Israel is by birth. Can people not born Jewish become Jewish? Caleb and Ruth a classic examples of non-Jewish people becoming Jewish. It is possible scripturally. Once a person 'converts', that person is fully Jewish and their offspring are Jewish (based simply on birth). So, individuals might convert and become 100% Jewish, again, it is by linage that their children are Jewish, born of a Jewish parent.

What does it take to be a convert to Judaism? There is a simple example. The person must believe that, the Jewish God is their God, and the Jewish people are their people (no longer identify or hold an allegiance to the former people), and for males, ritual physical circumcision. And an obligation to the covenant given at Mt. Sinai to the Jewish people. And finally, a recognition of the person by the Jewish people as being a member of the Jewish people.

Josephs sons were not Egyptian. They were Jewish/children of Israel by linage. There is no such thing as a half or part Jewish person. If a person is Jewish, they are 100% Jewish. However, if a person has Jewish ancestors, which do not qualify them to be Jewish, then they are not Jewish at all. All that they can say is they have Jewish ancestors but are not Jewish themselves. On the other side if only one parent is Jewish (mother), then the child is 100% Jewish.

This kind of thinking is foreign to many cultures. The only other culture I know of which works somewhat this way would be First Nation/Native Americans. A person can be initiated and accepted into a tribe and be considered fully a member of that tribe. A Mohawk can become a Lakota and be fully Lakota after undergoing the initiation rights with full acceptance of the people. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has set percentages before a person is recognized as a Native American, but Native American culture did not work that way. A person is a Shoshoni if they are born Shoshoni, or change and undergo the initiation rights to become a Shoshoni and are accepted by the Shoshoni people as now being Shoshoni.

Caleb became 100% Jewish as did Ruth. Their children were therefore born to Jewish parents and were 100% Jewish by birth.

Gxg (G²) · Sep 19, 2012

Qnts2 said:
Accepted generally, if the mother is Jewish means the child is Jewish (a child of Israel) although some say both parents and others say fathers.

Seeing how often heritage/inheritance was taken primarily from the father in early Jewish history (and later evolved to become mother focused), it is one of the central issues behind much of the debates when it comes to defining what it means to be of Israel. By today's standards, one is Jewish if their mother was Jewish----although the history of those standards becoming as they were is highly interesting (more discussed here in #34 ). There was a good book on the issue that broke things down a lot called "Living Judaism: the complete guide to Jewish belief, tradition, and practice" ( ) by Wayne D. Dosick.

As said elsewhere, it's interesting to consider how it wasn't always the case that Jewishness had to be determined patrilinearly since the scriptures do not always show such to be true. I'm reminded of Joshua 17:3-4. For although women did not traditionally inherit property in Israelite society, Moses put justice ahead of tradition and gave these 5 women mentioned the land they deserved (Numbers 27:1-11). In fact, God told Moses to add a law that would help other women in similar circumstances inherit property as well...and Joshua, in his time, was carrying out that law. Numbers 27 gives more information on the issue. For up to that point, the Hebrew Law gave sons alone the right to inherit. But the daughters of Zelophehad, having no brothers, came to Moses to ask for their father's possessions. God told Moses that if a man died without sons, his inheritance would go to his daughters. But the daughters could keep it only if they married within their own tribe, probably so the territorial lines would remain intact (Numbers 36:5-12)

Nonetheless, even within many Jewish circles, Christ would be defined not by the Jewishness of His mother---but by examining the lineage of His Father/the rights that come through that.

So, being a child of Israel is by birth.

Being a child of Israel is also by adoption, according to the example of Caleb, who was not a child of Israel by birth but by adoption and was included in Israel despite his background with Edom...and others as well who picked up the lifestyle.

Job would be a good study on the subject, seeing that he was not an Israelite and yet is often assumed to be.

Job himself was a righteous man after God whom God highly favored---with many scholars saying that Job actually existed way before Abraham did. The Israelite author presents Job as a person living in Uz, which is outside the borders of Israel itself ---and His piety (Job 1:1) exemplifies the ideal in Israelite wisdom and He invokes the name of Yahweh (Job 1:21). But at the same time, his relationship to Abraham's offspring remains a mystery. The events of the book seem to be set in the times of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The way Ezekiel 14:14 and Ezekiel 14:20 refer to Job along with two others apparently from ancient times enhances this impression....and so do the favorite names for the deity, God" (Hb. 'Eloah, the singular of 'Elohim) and "the Almighty" (Hb. Shadday), which seem more suited to the days before the Exodus 3:14 and Exodus 6:3 instances. The name Yahweh, the Lord, appear only in Job 1-2 and Job 38-42, with one lone exception in the middle of the book, 12:9). Again, the prophet Ezekiel mentions Job along with Noah and Daniel, and this seems to imply that he took Job as a real perosn. This is also the implication of James 5:11. With what was noted by Ezekiel, its interesting to see Noah and Job listed together---as Noah and Job are well-known righteous men of the past (Genesis 6:9, Job 1:1)..and Noah existed before the era after the Flood. Its possible that Job either existed at the same time as Noah or came directly after Him. Just a thought, as it concerns those whom God chose to reveal His standards.

But the text makes clear Job was in the form of a priest, making sacrifices for the sake of his children/family and intercedding for them..

The same occurred with Jethro, as Jethro stood outside of the Covenant Community...yet displayed uncanny knowledge of God. With Jethro, in Exodus 18, he was a priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1, Exodus 4:18)...and in light of the difficulty of both Egypt and the journey to Rephidim, Jethro's coming to meet Moses displays a relational posture of peace and encouragement, similar to when Aaron met Moses "at the mountain of God on his return from Midian (Exodus 4:27-31). Amazingly, after simply hearing about what the Lord had done on Israel's belalf, Jethro's words and actions represent a more faithful response than came from many of those who had experienced the events in Egypt (not to mention Egypt itself, as well as Amalek). For when he says, "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods" in verse 11, he echoes the purpose that the Lord said the plagues were to have for both Israel (Exodus 6:7) and Egypt (Exodus 7:5, Exodus 7:15). When Jethro brought burnt offerings and sacrifices and ate before God with Moses, Aaron and the elders, he prefigured the pattern of life that the Lord would reveal further at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 12:5-7). Moreover, Jethro was used by the Lord to help him find a faithful and workable way to have others bear the burden of judging the people and ensuring their well-being --His words becoming central to Israel's makeup in choosing judges (Exodus 18:13-26).

Gxg (G²) · Sep 19, 2012

Originally Posted by Qnts2
Can people not born Jewish become Jewish? Caleb and Ruth a classic examples of non-Jewish people becoming Jewish. It is possible scripturally. Once a person 'converts', that person is fully Jewish and their offspring are Jewish (based simply on birth). So, individuals might convert and become 100% Jewish, again, it is by linage that their children are Jewish, born of a Jewish parent.

What does it take to be a convert to Judaism? There is a simple example. The person must believe that, the Jewish God is their God, and the Jewish people are their people (no longer identify or hold an allegiance to the former people), and for males, ritual physical circumcision. And an obligation to the covenant given at Mt. Sinai to the Jewish people. And finally, a recognition of the person by the Jewish people as being a member of the Jewish people.

That all goes back to what was noted earlier when it came to the issue of how it often was a matter of LIFESTYLE that made a difference..paticularly in the case of others who chose to adapt to Judaism, convert/live out the life and have all of their children who were born later be deemed Jewish. Of course, from what other Jewish people have often noted, identifying with other people as apart of their ancestry isn't required in order to identify with Jewishness. Someone who's born with a Sephardic Jewish mother and a Mexican father doesn't say that they have to deny being Mexican in order to accept being Jewish.....although where their Mexican heritage calls them to do things that the Jewish religion would not allow, in order to live out the Jewish heritage, the Mexican side would have to lose.

This is no different than what was noted in Ezra 9-10 when intermarriage was occurring and the children from those marriages were NOT considered "Israelites"--but a differing category altogether....one which required for the Israelites to send their children off in divorce.

Ezra 9:1-3
Ezra’s Prayer About Intermarriage

1 After these things had been done, the leaders came to me and said, “The people of Israel, including the priests and the Levites, have not kept themselves separate from the neighboring peoples with their detestable practices, like those of the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites. 2 They have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and their sons, and have mingled the holy race with the peoples around them. And the leaders and officials have led the way in this unfaithfulness.”

3 When I heard this, I tore my tunic and cloak, pulled hair from my head and beard and sat down appalled. 4 Then everyone who trembled at the words of the God of Israel gathered around me because of this unfaithfulness of the exiles. And I sat there appalled until the evening sacrifice.

Ezra 10:12-44

Within the three days, all the men of Judah and Benjamin had gathered in Jerusalem. And on the twentieth day of the ninth month, all the people were sitting in the square before the house of God, greatly distressed by the occasion and because of the rain. 10 Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have been unfaithful; you have married foreign women, adding to Israel’s guilt. 11 Now honor the LORD, the God of your ancestors, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples around you and from your foreign wives.”

12 The whole assembly responded with a loud voice: “You are right! We must do as you say. 13 But there are many people here and it is the rainy season; so we cannot stand outside. Besides, this matter cannot be taken care of in a day or two, because we have sinned greatly in this thing. 14 Let our officials act for the whole assembly. Then let everyone in our towns who has married a foreign woman come at a set time, along with the elders and judges of each town, until the fierce anger of our God in this matter is turned away from us.” 15 Only Jonathan son of Asahel and Jahzeiah son of Tikvah, supported by Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite, opposed this. 16 So the exiles did as was proposed. Ezra the priest selected men who were family heads, one from each family division, and all of them designated by name.

Since the time of the judges, Israelite men had married heathen women and then adopted their religious practices (Judges 3:5-7), Even Israel's great King Solomon was guilty of this sin ( I Kings 11:1-8). Although this practice was forbidden in God's Law (Exodus 34:11-16, Deuteronomy 7:1-4), it happened in Ezra's day and again only a generation after him (Nehemiah 13:23-27). Opposition to mixed marriages was not a racial prejudice, because Jews and non-Jews of this area were of the same semitic background. The reasons it seems were purely spiritual.....for one who married a heathen spouse was inclinded to adopt that person's heathen practices. If the Israelities were insentive enough to disobey God in something as important as marriage, they couldn't be strong enough to oppose their spouses's idolatry. One can go to the NT to see a similar principle when it notes that believers should not marry non-believers (II Corinthians 6:14)....

But with Ezra, in Ezra 10:3, it has always been interesting to see how the people were commanded by the scribe to DIVORCE their wives and leave their children. Although the measure was extreme, I've heard that others say the intermarriage to heathens was already forbidden---with even the priests and the Levities intermarrying. The equivalent would be a Christian marrying to a devil worshipper....

Some have noted that Ezra's strong act was necessary to preserve Israel as nation committed to God. For some of the exiles of the Northern Kingdom of Israel had lost both their spiritual and physical identity through intermarriage...and their heathen spouses caused them to worship idols (I Kings 16:29-34, I Kings 21, II Kings 17, II Chronicles 18, II Chronicles 22-24, II Kings 11-12, etc).

Just because a group of people had Israelite blood in their genes (or Judaic blood) when they were mixed didn't automatically not make them "Israel" or "Judah"..for it was a matter of practice that defined them as such. That leaves open the issue of how to deal with those other Jews who were the product of Mixed marriages. The Story of Esther comes to mind, as she is an example of a Jew who was greatly connected to Gentile culture. For the culture she lived in was one of many differing groups connected together in the Persian Empire...and with multi languages and one where Jews were involved in each ( Esther 1:21-22 , Esther 3:11-13, Esther 8:8-10 ).

Esther 2:6
15 When the turn came for Esther (the young woman Mordecai had adopted, the daughter of his uncle Abihail) to go to the king, she asked for nothing other than what Hegai, the king’s eunuch who was in charge of the harem, suggested. And Esther won the favor of everyone who saw her. 16 She was taken to King Xerxes in the royal residence in the tenth month, the month of Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign. 17 Now the king was attracted to Esther more than to any of the other women, and she won his favor and approval more than any of the other virgins. So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti. 18 And the king gave a great banquet, Esther’s banquet, for all his nobles and officials. He proclaimed a holiday throughout the provinces and distributed gifts with royal liberality.

Esther 2:1-18 shows how she chose to learn whatever it was she needed for success---with God blessing it. And by her and her uncle placed in leadership, Jews rose to prominence. This is especially interesting in light of how Jews were already returning to Jerusalem after the 70yrs were up (Ezra 1-4) and some had chosen to stay where they had made homes for themselves/lives

As Esther was married to the KING OF PERSIA (Esther 2-8), she was used greatly to save her people.....but nonetheless, she was married to a pagan king. Moreover, as it stands, her story is 30 yrs prior to the events recorded in Nehemiah....and essentially right after what occurred in Ezra 4 with Zerubbabel and prior to Ezra (a contemporary of Nehemiah). If she had children with the King of Persia, would they be considered Jewish? Would they have to consider themselves PERSIAN only? Or would Esthers Jewish faith be imparted to them just like it was with Timothy's mother/grandmother in Acts 16:1-5 and II Timothy 1:5 ? If those children Queen Esther had were to interact with others in the time of Ezra, would they have been exiled/cast away as Ezra requested with the children given to the men who were involved with intermarriage?

Part of me often wonders how many would handle others from the scriptures if they existed today, such as Esther. FOr again, she was married to a Persian King, even though she was a devout (abeit hidden/Crypto) Jew (Esther 2, Esther 8-9, etc). An historical essay said that King Xerxes is later killed by one of his own men (murdered) a couple of years after everything went down with Esther's story...but it did not say if they'd had children or what they were named.

As another said best:

Xerxes was killed in fall of 465 B.C. by Artabanus (his counseler) who also killed the oldest son (this was the son of Vashti). He then proclaimed himself king and was killed by Artaxerxes 1 several months later in hand to hand combat. Artaxerxes 1 was between 10 and 12 years old depending on the reference you check. This was quite a feat for a child that young but remember he was trained in combat since he was old enough to walk. Artaxerxes 1 then took the throne as the rightful king.

Esther the queen mother is still alive at this time. Now if Artaxerxes 1 is only 12 years old then he had to have been born in 477 B.C. This was the year following Esther becoming queen. So Esther was the mother of Artaxerxes 1 making him half Jewish. Now we see why he would have a Jew as a cup bearer (Nehemiah 1 )r. Not because it was a conquered people but because he was a Jew himself. In addition it was Artaxerxes 1 that in the 20th year of his reign (444 B.C.) issued the decree to rebuild Jerusalem which started the countdown to the coming of Christ, as prophesied by Daniel (Daniel 9:25) and ending on the 10th of Nisan 33 A.D. when Christ rode to the temple and was rejected by the Jews (he was cut off or set aside for the Passover) to be crucified. The prophecy by God was fulfilled to the very day in its accuracy. I hope this helps your understanding and answers your question.

Of course, what the man noted is not something that others feel could be verified 100%..but it's something to consider. There was actually a book I had investigated at one point entitled Esther's Children: A Portrait of Iranian Jews (more shared here ) and what life was like for the Jewish people in Babylon (modern Iran) and what often happened with them when they were either involved in Crypto-Jewish lifestyle or intemarrying with them while still trying to keep their Jewish culture.....and it really made me think on how many of those within the scriptures may disagree with some of the practices that are done today when it comes to mixed families.

I'd side with those who note having a Gentile genetic/cultural background as apart of your ancestry doesn't preclude you from embracing/walking in the Jewish/Hebraic aspect of their culture...and with Esther, although the children from her marriage with Xeres would be half-Gentile, that would not keep them from being deemed Jewish and apart of the Jewish people if they walked accordingly.

For a child to be born to a couple where the father was Jewish and the mother wasn't made that child considered as Jewish. Its no different than what often occurs with biracial individuals. People can be both 100% Caribbean and 100% Italian if they are of a mixed background, sharing both cultures within myself. I know Brother Shimshon has often spoken on the subject many times whenever people question him about his being Taino, Puerto Rican and Jewish..( #2#4 #35 #164 )..

But as he well noted as it concerns the issue of how those not ethnically Hebrew were still seen as Israel:

Shimshon said:
This mixed multitued of egyptians and hebrews were all Yisrael because they all followed by faith the Elohim of Yisrael. Or they would not be there. .

It's the lifestyle rather than the genetics alone that count...

And that goes back to the issue of others such as Caleb and Joshua---one being from Esau and the other being from others who were adopted into the clan even though they had an Egyptian background, with a father (Joseph) that greatly emulated EGYPTIAN culture as well (i.e. shaving his beard, marrying an Egyptian wife/daughter of a High priest). There can be no denying the reality of Joshua having a Gentile background in part due to his Egyptian ancestry, genetically and culturally. That doesn't fade away with generations, although being adopted fully into a tribe changes the emphasis of what culture takes center stage---and with Joshua's ancestry, because Ephraim/Manasseh were adopted as Hebrews, that's is what was considered of Joshua in his time. Didn't mean Joshua wasn't Gentile as part of his identity--but his Hebrew background took precedence.
.

Gxg (G²) · Sep 19, 2012

Originally Posted by Qnts2

Click to expand...

Josephs sons were not Egyptian. They were Jewish/children of Israel by linage. There is no such thing as a half or part Jewish person. If a person is Jewish, they are 100% Jewish. However, if a person has Jewish ancestors, which do not qualify them to be Jewish, then they are not Jewish at all. All that they can say is they have Jewish ancestors but are not Jewish themselves. On the other side if only one parent is Jewish (mother), then the child is 100% Jewish.
This kind of thinking is foreign to many cultures. The only other culture I know of which works somewhat this way would be First Nation/Native Americans. A person can be initiated and accepted into a tribe and be considered fully a member of that tribe. A Mohawk can become a Lakota and be fully Lakota after undergoing the initiation rights with full acceptance of the people. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has set percentages before a person is recognized as a Native American, but Native American culture did not work that way. A person is a Shoshoni if they are born Shoshoni, or change and undergo the initiation rights to become a Shoshoni and are accepted by the Shoshoni people as now being Shoshoni.

Caleb became 100% Jewish as did Ruth. Their children were therefore born to Jewish parents and were 100% Jewish by birth.

By the standards of how others understand Jewish heritage in Judaism today, Joseph's sons would not have been Jewish---and at that point, even as "Jewishness" is defined today in terms of Mosaic code, they would not have been in that category even if they were deemed "Jewish" since they were children of two cultures...with a father who emulated both cultures before his own family. There was a reason that their grand-father, Jacob, had to adopt to them into the family line. ..and at the point they were adopted into the tribe, they were deemed to be Jewish.

This happened often in the cultures surrounding the Hebrews during Jacob's day. With the tribe of Simeon, this seemed to play out since they were absored into the tribe of Judah/adopted at one point---and yet they also got adopted into other tribes as well.To give more thoughts, on what occurred with Simeon's fate, there was a book I read earlier last year (recommended by another Messianic Jew) entitled "Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for Ishmael's Line" by Dr.Tony Maalouf, it was very insightful studying up on the bloodlines that the scriptures note---and showing how many of them blended (such as Ishmael's line and Easu's as well, for example) and why they often did so through the act of adopting members into the tribe....and making them one of the people just as it often occurred in Middle-Eastern/African culture. More on what he said on that can be seen here in #8 and here, including discussing where other tribes from the Israelite culture adopted others/blended for the sake of survival (as what occurred with the line of Simeon).

Indeed, as you noted, First Nations Groups/Native Americans have the concept of others being adopted into tribes/being considered to be fully amongst the people...although even this is something that does not always play out without flaw since many in differing tribes often had issue with others due to their ancestry from others outside the tribe...whereas others had no issue acknowledging where one could be BlackFoot and yet have Caucasian blood in them. One of the best reads I was able to check out on the issue years ago is entitled "Black Indians" by William Lorenz Katz ----and for more info, one can go online/investigate an article under the name of "William Loren Katz | Black Indians. Black West." () and "Black Indians by William Loren Katz" () The book itself goes into great depth discussing the issues of what went down for those who were products of mixed marriages/alliances between American Indians and Blacks.....and it also talked on why it seemed that blacks and Native Americans often were quick to form alliances more in ways that amazed the Europeans coming to conquer them...even though there were many battles between the groups even after intermixing (more shared here at "Indivisible: African Native American Lives in the Americas" ( ) ).

Some of that I thought was fascinating, especially on the subject of adoption.....and how many do not see Jewishness in terms of GENETICS alone. Many have made the issue of Judaism and following God a matter of Genetics---and yet scripturally, genetics were often NOT a factor for whether or not others were included within Judaism. Be it with Ruth, Rahab or others who were adopted into the Hebrew culture, it was often about one's lifestyle....

In regard to Joseph's sons, more shared here as it concerns the extensive ways Joseph lived in sync with Egyptian culture even though he also honored his Hebrew roots (i.e. shaving his beard, dressing Egyptian, taking on an Egyptian name, marrying an Egyptian wife, etc). In light of how Ephraim/Manasseah were adopted by Jacob into the 12 tribes (despite their being Egyptian via their mother/how they grew up)--and with Ephraim and Manasseh, though physically half-Israelites, Gentiles in the truest sense:

Joseph Foreshadows God's Jewish Agenda (Joseph, Ephraim and Manasse )

The subject of the blessing is very significant when it comes to studying the issue of passing on callings/responsibilities to others and (as was common in that culture) ADopting others into a tribe. There was nothing wrong with blessing Gentiles. For example, Jacob blessed the Pharaoh of Egypt, a rank pagan. In Genesis 47:7-10, the text declares, "and Jacob blessed Pharaoh…"

The passing of blessings from the hands of a godly man was for God himself to bless that person, individually. In other words when a righteous person passed a blessing to another person, God honored it without question. Nowhere in the significance of laying hands on another and speaking blessings be seen as clearly as it is seen in Genesis when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, the two half-Egyptian (Gentile) sons of Joseph in Genesis 48:19-21 /Genesis 48 .

Genesis 48:3
Jacob said to Joseph, “God Almighty[a] appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan, and there he blessed me 4 and said to me, ‘I am going to make you fruitful and increase your numbers. I will make you a community of peoples, and I will give this land as an everlasting possession to your descendants after you.’

5 “Now then, your two sons born to you in Egypt before I came to you here will be reckoned as mine; Ephraim and Manasseh will be mine, just as Reuben and Simeon are mine. 6 Any children born to you after them will be yours; in the territory they inherit they will be reckoned under the names of their brothers. 7 As I was returning from Paddan,[b] to my sorrow Rachel died in the land of Canaan while we were still on the way, a little distance from Ephrath. So I buried her there beside the road to Ephrath” (that is, Bethlehem).

With Ephraim/Manasseh ( Genesis 41:51-53 , Genesis 46:19-21/ Genesis 46, Genesis 50:22-24 / Genesis 50, Numbers 1:9-11 / Numbers 1, Deuteronomy 33:16-18 / Deuteronomy 33, Joshua 14:3-5/ Joshua 14 , Joshua 16 , etc )Just before Jacob died, Joseph brought Ephraim and Manasseh to Jacob, and the two boys knelt before their grandfather. Jacob shocked everyone in the room when he crossed his hands putting his left hand on the head of Manasseh, the eldest son, and his right hand on the head of Ephraim, the younger son. It was the reverse order.

The blessing of Jacob that he gave his grand-children (especially Ephraim) consisted of the five most crucial parts of God's covenant with Israel. First, Jacob asked God to be Lord over Ephraim and Manasseh. Second, Jacob asked God to redeem Ephraim and Manasseh through the messenger of redemption. Third, Jacob gave to Ephraim and Manasseh his own name; that is, he adopted them. Fourth, Jacob gave the name of his forefathers to the boys further indicating their adoption as true sons of Israel. Fifth, Jacob asked God to make Ephraim and Manasseh into a great multitude of people. Clearly, Jacob's blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh by laying his hands upon their heads was the same as the blessings he had bestowed upon his natural born sons earlier.

Jacob's blessing, including the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh as his own sons, replacing the former Egyptian heritage of these two young men with a new Hebrew heritage. Thus, Ephraim and Manasseh were drafted into Jacob's family. Like Paul noted in Romans 11, they became natural branches, full brothers with the other sons of Israel. This gave Ephraim and Manasseh the same responsibilities and rewards that the natural-born sons already had. The Egyptian identity of Ephraim and Manasseh remained only in the sense of ethnicity/cultural background and origins--but outside of that, they were now considered to be "Hebrews" and they they gained the identity of true Israelites...becoming partakers of the same covenants as the other sons of Israel, and subject to the same commandments and responsibilities as Jacob's natural born sons.

As soon as Jacob's hands touched their heads, and the words of blessings left his mouth, Ephraim and Manasseh became equal partakers of the root and the fatness of the natural olive tree that the apostle Paul wrote about in Romans 11:16-18 / Romans 11 :

"If some of the branches be broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them, to partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree."

I'd go with the traditional interpretation that at best Joshua was mixed since the children of Joseph were still considered Hebrews....abeit mixed/biracial Hebrews with dual heritage (i.e. aspects of Gentile culture apart of their background as well as the Hebraic)...similar to those who are Egyptian Jews. ( as discussed here and here in #12 ). Nun was apart of the tribe from Joseph's children ( Exodus 33:10-12, Numbers 11:27-29 , Numbers 13:15-17 , Numbers 14:29-31 , Numbers 26:64-65 , Numbers 27:17-19 , Numbers 32:11-13 , etc).

Gxg (G²) · Sep 19, 2012

Qnts2 said:
In my view, if Paul was speaking to Hispanics and sald blessing to them (all Hispanics) and the Servants of God, the first would be blessing all Hispanics and the second would be a subset of Hispanics who were Servants of God. .

Could definately see that, although it'd make it appear to be the case that Paul was saying of one group of Hispanics that they were not really "Servants of God" and the other not really "Servants"...and that'd be disconnected from the whole of the book due to how he was speaking to Galatians as a whole since the 1st chapter/speaking of them as all having the same issues/heart.

But what Paul said was actually much more specific. He is talking to people who believe his teaching concerning circumcision. He blessed those Gentile who believed his teaching (and therefore would not become circumcised), and he blessed the believing born again children of Israel who also accepted his teaching, that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised.

That, again, would need to be given more evidence---as the Churches in Galatia (Gentiles) were not known to have any Jewish people in the audience. It'd be like going to a church primarily in a Hispanic part of town saying to the audience "Blessings to you my brother/sisters" and "Blessings to you as well my Afro-American brotherhood" when there are no blacks present in that town. It'd be needless to make a blessing to a culture that is simply not in the text (unless one was talking to themselves/thinking internally).

When Paul is speaking in Galatians (per Galatians 1) he is speaking to the Galatian churches which were Gentile----Gentiles who had others from Jerusalem come into their midst trying to make them Jewish....and to those, Paul would be making sense to call them the Israel of God.

Again, it was the Jewish people who were teaching to be a part of Gods people, they needed to be circumcised. Physical circumcision was a requirement to be counted among the children of Israel.

Genesis 17:14 But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”

Therefore, there are two different groups, born again Gentiles who believed what Paul was teaching, and born again Jewish people who believed what Paul was teaching, that Gentiles did not need circumcision to be a full member of the born again assembly. Paul blessed both.

Apart from the fact that the text of Galatians (and history) doesn't show where the Galatian churches had a large prescence of Jewish believers amongst them --the entire issue of why it was a big deal to claim they had to be Jewish since they lived in Gentile culture and weren't like Gentiles moving into Jewish territory---it should be noted that physical circumcision was never an absolute requirement to be counted among the children of Israel in all cases.

Gal. 6:15-16:
"For what counts is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, it is the new creation. On all who will be guided by this rule, may peace and mercy rest, even upon the Israel of God."

Paul says that those who are among the true Israel are those who walk by this rule -- that what really counts is the new creation. For fleshly Israel, circumcision means everything; but for spiritual Israel, the new creation is the important thing. There is a connection here with Paul's mention of the Jerusalem above:

"but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. ... So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free."

The Jerusalem above is called the "mother of us all" -- that is, the mother of all believers. Who is the mother of all believers? I understand this to be a reference to the church spoken of by Paul...that body uniting both the Jew/Gentile together in one body (1 Tim. 3:15).

For some excellent study material that may help to give more clarity:

__________________

Obvious is the case that there's no room for anyone denying the fact that being apart of Israel/inheriting had circumcision as one of the deals one had to keep in being in Covenant with God. However, apart from the fact that circumcision was already being practiced amongst the other nations long before God told his people to do such, there was far more to being with God's people than being circumcised---for it was an outward sign of an inward reality...

Romans 4:10-11

How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,

It is a sign of the covenant, the covenant that was already established... as stated here: "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised".

Why did God require circumcision? It was a sign of obediance to him in all that matters. As a sign of belonging to his covenant people...once circumcised, there was no turning back. The man would be identified as a Jew forever...and as a symbol of "cutting off" the old life of sin, purifying one's heart and dedicating oneself to God. It was more than any other practice the way God's people seperated from their pagan neighbors......in Abraham's day. And this was essential to develop the pure worship of God.

Although other cultures used circumcision as a sign of entry into adulthood, only Israel used it as a sign of following God....though the practice in/of itself never gave one righteousness---as seen in Romans 4:3, Romans 2:24-26, and Jeremiah 9:24-26. For rituals did not earn any reward with Abraham. It was by faith alone.....as Genesis 12:1-14 tells of God's call to Abram when he was 75 yrs old....and the circumcision ceremony was introduced when he was 99years old. The outward symbols demonstrated inward trust/faith and as reminders of our faith--but by themselves, they could never bring justification. Nonetheless, to be considered apart of Israel in the OT, it was a BIG deal, (i.e., Exodus 12:43-45 , Leviticus 12:2-4, etc).

As it concerns the practice of circumcision, much of its importance can be seen clearly when studying the context of what occurred with Moses when he failed to circumcise his children, as seen in Exodus 4:25-27. To the best of my understanding, Moses was the most humble man on the earth ( Numbers 12:2-4, Hebrews 11:23-25, etc )..yet God was about to kill Moses had he not circumcised his son......and he may not have been too familar with God's laws, especially the requirements of God's covenant with Israel in Genesis 17 that had not been carried out for over 400years. And Moses could not actively function as deliverer of God's people until he had fulfilled the conditions of God's covenant....and one of those conditions was circumcision.

Before they could go any further, Moses and his family had to fulfill God's commands completely. For under the OT, failing to circumcise your son was to remove yourself and your family from God's blesings.....and Moses QUICKLY learned that disobeying God was even more dangerous than tangling with an Egyptian Pharoah.

Exodus 2:23-25 makes clear that the Lord remembered his covenant promises....and his people were called to remember the conditions of the covenant. Moses was held responsible for the provisions of the covenant with Abraham that required him to circumcise his sons. And failure to be circumcised may have led to some severe form of punishment, Numbers 9:6-14 . Had it not been for Moses's wife coming through, the man would have died. And to say it was not a part of the requirement to be considered Israel, one would perhaps have to diminish the significance of the threat Moses had.

What was noted about circumcision also goes back to Joshua 5, where God required Joshua to circumcise all male before entering the land. For its interesting to see how those males were already citizens of Israel. However, the ones who entered the land were those who were children of the older Israelities who never entered in.

Illegal immigrants entering the U.S.A can give birth to children in the states, effectively making them "U.S Citizens".. even though they may not have all of the full benefits of the country at their disposal due to their background...and the things they must work through. Likewise, by "accident of birth" those males in Joshua 5 were already counted among the Hebrew Children, but in order to enter the Land as legitimate citizens of Israel, they HAD TO BE circumcized according to the LAW of Moses. Even though the children of the older generation of Israelities had fought in many battles during their time in the wilderness (Numbers 20-36, Deuteronomy 2-4, etc), its possible that many of the young men had never been circumcised. Joshua 5:5 makes clear that all of those men of military age died in the desert after leaving Egypt....and whereas all the people coming out of Egypt had been circumcised, those born in the desert during the journey from Egypt had not. Its also possible that the new/second generation also had children who were uncircumcisd at this time.

But their circumcision had nothing to do with their being noted as apart of God's people.

For another example, the first covenant community was Abraham's household. It did not include only his immediate family but also slaves and strangers. They were all members of the household BEFORE they were circumcised. Gen. 17:14 says: " And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be CUT OFF FROM HIS PEOPLE; he has broken my covenant." For in Genesis 17:1 (also seen in Acts 7:7-9 ), God was making a covenant, or contract, between Himself and Abraham.

The terms were simple: Abraham would obey God and circumcise all the males in his household----and interestingly, those also who were NON-Jewish as well...including servants like Eleazer of Damascus ( Genesis 15:1-3, Genesis 15 ).......which is an Arab nation the last I checked...and of course, with Ishmael--the father of the Arab Nations ( Genesis 16 , Genesis 17:19-21 , Genesis 21, Genesis 25:8-10, Genesis 25, Genesis 28:8-10, Genesis 36:2-4, 1 Chronicles 1:27-29, 1 Chronicles 1 Romans 9:7, Galatians 4:21-31)--him being circumcised as well..Genesis 17:22-24 Genesis 17...and in relationship with the Lord, as discussed in #17

In order for a person be be CUT off from his people, he needs first to be a part of the people, no? The slaves and strangers in Abraham household were all member of Abraham's people BEFORE they were circumcised. Circumcision did not play a role for them to be part of the household.

As explained earlier, in Joshua 5, all the uncircumcised people in the covenant community at the time (the children of Israel) were members of the people. Requiring circumcision in order to enter the Land had nothing to do with them already being members of the covenant community. The circumcision was to fulfill the requirement as a a sign of the covenant, not to become citizens of Israel....or demonstrate faith in the Lord. For even those outside of the Covenant Community demonstrated faith in the Lord on many occassions. Some of this was discussed elsewhere when it came to others like Jethro or Melchizedek and the Roman Centurion in Matthew 8 and many others.

Thankfully, it was never the case that those who wanted to be apart of the community of God/believers had to be circumcised in all cases...and even more thankful in light of what Christ has done in the NT. For after the Cross of Christ, circumcision takes on an entirely different revelation:

1 Corinthians 7:17-19
Concerning Change of Status
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts

Galatians 5:6
6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

The Commonwealth of Israel to be added to the MJ Statement of Faith? (bis)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Y'shua is His Name

aniello

Guest

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Y'shua is His Name

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Newbie

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Well-Known Member

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Similar threads