If Amils are right and we are in the Millennium "Kingdom" now, what other verses back this up?

Guojing said:

That is the main reason why you cannot separate Israel from the Body of Christ.

Click to expand...

Because it's not taught in scripture that spiritual Israel is different than the body of Christ? Yes, I agree.

Spiritual Jew said:

Can you tell me how you interpret this passage:

Romans 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.

Click to expand...

I can tell you what I think it means? I think it means that only Israelites who are faithful to God and obey Him are members of the nation that God promised to Abraham would be his biological heirs. Would God promise him wicked children? If God knew how Abraham wanted to obey Him and love Him and serve Him, why would God promise him children and then deliver wicked children?

And so, the children God promised Abraham, the "friend of God," were good children, who like Abraham, would want to serve God. Isaac was one of those God determined would be a good child, or at least choose God for his own. And the fact God wanted to give Abraham a biological heir is evident in that He insisted on providing a child descended not only through him but also through his chosen wife, Sarah.

Spiritual Jew said:

Do you think Romans 9:6 is referring to one Israel? If so, that would mean it's saying not all who are descended from national Israel are national Israel (natural Israelites), which makes no sense whatsoever. It's clearly referring to two different Israels there. Why deny that?

Click to expand...

I deny it because I think you're reading it wrong. I don't think Paul is saying there are 2 Israels. Rather, he's saying there's some descended from Israel who are not "promised children." They truly belong to the nation of Israel, but they do not belong to the membership of Israel that God promised Abraham. They are illegitimate precisely because they do not share Abraham's faith. And God only promised Abraham children of faith.

The illegitimate children of Abraham do not constitute "another Israel." Rather, they constitute a group of outcasts, who are rejected due to their behavior and lack of faith. They choose against God and His word, and demonstrate it by the nature of their interests.

Spiritual Jew said:

Verses 7 and 8 describe the differences between the two Israels.

The Israel of which "not all who are descended from Israel" are part is comprised of those who are reckoned or called through Isaac (read Galatians 4:22-31 to find out what that means), are "God's children", are "children of the promise" and regarded (counted) as Abraham's offspring (seed). And being part of that Israel has nothing to do with who someone physically descended from. So, that can't possibly be referring to the nation of Israel. Being part of that Israel is entirely based on one's spiritual status.

Click to expand...

To be "reckoned through Isaac" does not mean the biological factor of the people so created is lost. Rather, it means to distinguish between that part of the group who share Abraham's faith from that part of the group who don't share his faith. Only one Israel is promised to Abraham, and it excludes those who do not wish to live by faith.

To be fair, one could say that there are in effect "2 Israels" in order to use language to express two different kinds of Israelites--one group of faith and the other group not of faith. But that is not the language Scripture here is using. There is no expression that "2 Israels exist."

But I appreciate your willingness to continue the conversation, amicably and respectfully!

RandyPNW said:

I can tell you what I think it means? I think it means that only Israelites who are faithful to God and obey Him are members of the nation that God promised to Abraham would be his biological heirs.

Click to expand...

But aren't those who are not faithful to God also biological heirs of Abraham? Sure, they are. So, you don't seem to be taking that into account. Paul was differentiating between the Israel of which people are part of simply by being physical descendants and the Israel of which people are part because of being children of God and children of the promise.

Would God promise him wicked children? If God knew how Abraham wanted to obey Him and love Him and serve Him, why would God promise him children and then deliver wicked children?

Click to expand...

No. The promise has to do with spiritual children who have faith like Abraham as Paul wrote about in other places like Galatians 3:26-29.

And so, the children God promised Abraham, the "friend of God," were good children, who like Abraham, would want to serve God. Isaac was one of those God determined would be a good child, or at least choose God for his own. And the fact God wanted to give Abraham a biological heir (physical descendant) is evident in that He insisted on providing a child descended not only through him but also through his chosen wife, Sarah.

Click to expand...

But Romans 9:6-8 says "Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children" and "it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children". Yet, you are making it as though being a biological heir has something to do with it even though it seems clear to me that Paul said it doesn't have anything to do with it in terms of being a child of Abraham (child of God, child of the promise).

I deny it because I think you're reading it wrong. I don't think Paul is saying there are 2 Israels. Rather, he's saying there's some descended from Israel who are not "promised children." They truly belong to the nation of Israel, but they do not belong to the membership of Israel that God promised Abraham.

Click to expand...

You denied that there are 2 Israels and then you proceeded to reference "the nation of Israel" in contrast to the "Israel that God promised Abraham". Isn't that 2 different Israels? In other words, the nation of Israel, which are a majority unbelievers, are not the Israel of faithful people that God promised Abraham, right?

RandyPNW said:

I can tell you what I think it means? I think it means that only Israelites who are faithful to God and obey Him are members of the nation that God promised to Abraham would be his biological heirs. Would God promise him wicked children? If God knew how Abraham wanted to obey Him and love Him and serve Him, why would God promise him children and then deliver wicked children?

And so, the children God promised Abraham, the "friend of God," were good children, who like Abraham, would want to serve God. Isaac was one of those God determined would be a good child, or at least choose God for his own. And the fact God wanted to give Abraham a biological heir is evident in that He insisted on providing a child descended not only through him but also through his chosen wife, Sarah.



I deny it because I think you're reading it wrong. I don't think Paul is saying there are 2 Israels. Rather, he's saying there's some descended from Israel who are not "promised children." They truly belong to the nation of Israel, but they do not belong to the membership of Israel that God promised Abraham. They are illegitimate precisely because they do not share Abraham's faith. And God only promised Abraham children of faith.

The illegitimate children of Abraham do not constitute "another Israel." Rather, they constitute a group of outcasts, who are rejected due to their behavior and lack of faith. They choose against God and His word, and demonstrate it by the nature of their interests.



To be "reckoned through Isaac" does not mean the biological factor of the people so created is lost. Rather, it means to distinguish between that part of the group who share Abraham's faith from that part of the group who don't share his faith. Only one Israel is promised to Abraham, and it excludes those who do not wish to live by faith.

To be fair, one could say that there are in effect "2 Israels" in order to use language to express two different kinds of Israelites--one group of faith and the other group not of faith. But that is not the language Scripture here is using. There is no expression that "2 Israels exist."

But I appreciate your willingness to continue the conversation, amicably and respectfully!

Click to expand...

You are playing with words here. It seems like you struggle to let the text speak for itself. It is telling us: not all natural Israelites are true spiritual Israelites.

Guojing said:

How about this, show me scripture from the books of James, Peter and John, any verse, and tell me how you would interpret them as "saying the same thing as Paul".

Namely

• Physical circumcision is no longer required
• Following the Law of Moses is no longer required.
• There is neither Jew nor Gentile in the Body of Christ

I would like to see how different people attempt to make them do so.

Click to expand...

First, you can see it in Jesus' teaching of his 12 Disciples, that Israel, together with their temple worship, would fail. See the Olivet Discourse. This would delegitimize circumcision, the seal of the very covenant that would fail!

If the covenant failed, then so too did the rituals of the Law become worthless. And the symbol of the covenant of Law, circumcision, became a needless symbol of the OT agreement.

Second, you can see it in Acts, where Paul and James came to complete agreement, as I said. James proposed a compromise, which cannot be an endorsement of the Law, which knows no compromise. A compromise means that James acknowledged the Law was no longer in operation.

In the book of James, he referred to the Law as the "Law of Liberty," recognizing that it was no longer authoritative in its OT form. And that would delegitimize circumcision, the sign of the OT covenant that failed.

James 1.25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
2.12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.

Here, James assumes that following Christ's command to love is the basis for all righteousness under NT standards, and not just by OT standards. Under all conditions, love remains the preeminent standard.

Under the Law Jesus taught that the entire Law, which would include circumcision, was required as an aspect of loving God. But after the Law failed, the 613 requirements of the Law are subsumed under the redemption of Christ's atoning death. All that remains are acts of love outside of the Law and its rituals.

James 2.8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.

The Apostle John recognized the common element between OT and NT, and yet focused primarily on NT truth, because that's where we are now. The NT does not include circumcision.

And I doubt John would emphasize that, since his ministry began among the Jews, and attacking a traditional Jewish institution like circumcision was not critical to salvation issues and could provide a stumbling block in efforts at communication with Jews.

John 2.7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and in you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

Though John lived in a time when the Jews had followed the Law and continued to follow the Law even after Christ's death, he considered that a "darkness that is passing away, to be replaced by the new light of Christian faith and practice.

Here, Peter similarly has no wish to make the tradition of circumcision the matter by which to reach the heart of the Jew, since it did not determine righteous behavior for Christians. Like James and John, Peter's ministry began among the Jews, and so likely downplayed circumcision. See Acts 21.

1 Peter 1.3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade.

This was Peter's way of speaking of the process of rebirth initially taught Nicodemus while still under the OT Law. That rebirth is fulfilled in the NT without the paraphernalia of OT rituals, like circumcision. It is based on entering into the resurrected Christ spiritually. And Christ had no need to be circumcised, baptized, cleansed or forgiven. He was, however, circumcised and baptized as a model for Israel to follow while under the Law.

But now that Christ has been raised from the dead, and we are cleansed and forgiven in him, we have no need for rituals like circumcision, though the practice of baptism does afford us testimony to our belief in the redemption and spiritual life of Christ.

Attacking Jewish Law and Ritual did nothing to convince Jews that Christ was their ultimate redemption, ending any need for rituals of redemption. Rather than speak against what the Jews had held dear as a tradition, the important thing was to invite Jews to *know Christ.* Then, through experiencing his spiritual life they could know and believe that final atonement had already been achieved, and that no longer were rituals of the Law needed.

Paul explained this, and James, Peter, and John practiced it. That's why they said as little as they could against the Law in order to not prejudice the Jews against the Message as if the Gospel was anti-Semitic. But Paul made it clear, particularly to Gentiles, that adopting Jewish traditions had no value in matters that can only be fulfilled by living in Christ. They were not to think that eternal fulfillment can come by resorting to Jewish redemption rituals.

sovereigngrace said:

You are playing with words here. It seems like you struggle to let the text speak for itself. It is telling us: not all natural Israelites are true spiritual Israelites.

Click to expand...

Yes, it very clearly indicates that. I can't think of any reason besides doctrinal bias why anyone would deny that two different Israels are being contrasted in Romans 9:6-8.

RandyPNW said:

In the book of James, he referred to the Law as the "Law of Liberty," recognizing that it was no longer authoritative in its OT form. And that would delegitimize circumcision, the sign of the OT covenant that failed.

James 1.25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
2.12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom.

Here, James assumes that following Christ's command to love is the basis for all righteousness under NT standards, and not just by OT standards. Under all conditions, love remains the preeminent standard.

Under the Law Jesus taught that the entire Law, which would include circumcision, was required as an aspect of loving God. But after the Law failed, the 613 requirements of the Law are subsumed under the redemption of Christ's atoning death. All that remains are acts of love outside of the Law and its rituals.

James 2.8 If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right.

The Apostle John recognized the common element between OT and NT, and yet focused primarily on NT truth, because that's where we are now. The NT does not include circumcision.

Click to expand...

You have to understand that male Jews from Israel were circumcised when they were 8 days old.

So when you claim that James delegitimize circumcision, just because he made no mention of it in his letter, is subjective at best.

To me, you already start with that as an axiom and you are attempting to insert that into the book of James.

To put it in another way, whatever Paul said about physical circumcision in Galatians 5, especially when you reach the 2nd verse, did James, Peter and John said the same explicitly?

If all you can say is that, "since they never talk about physical circumcision, they must be thinking the same as Paul," that is reading into scripture to me.

Personally James exchange with Paul in Acts 21:18-25 is very clear, to me at least, how important physical circumcision remain for Jews, but gentile believers, as he stated in vs 25 are exempted.

How much clearer must Jesus said about the importance of the Law for the house of Israel, in Matthew 5:19, before you will be convinced?

Spiritual Jew said:

Because it's not taught in scripture that spiritual Israel is different than the body of Christ? Yes, I agree.

Click to expand...

The term "spiritual Israel" actually comes from your own imagination.

I don't recall any such term in scripture, but feel free to show me

Spiritual Jew said:

You didn't quote that in your response to me, so how was I supposed to know you were referring to that? And your answer wasn't even directly in response to me (it was a post you made to Randy that I hadn't read), but I was somehow supposed to know you already answered it despite that? Come on. Stop wasting my time with these games you're playing.

Click to expand...

No one is playing any games. I was simply reminding you that the answer you are looking for has already been stated.

As far as the resurrected Christ is concerned, here is what he said to them before he ascended to heaven

Matthew 28
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Click to expand...

If you cannot even understand what Matthew 28:20 is saying literally, the problem lies with you.

5thKingdom said:

Of course, the CONTEXT needed here is the understanding that there are TWO (2) different
"Kingdoms" on earth. The spiritual kingdom and the physical/political kingdom(s) of the world.

When we are saved/born again/regenerated/indwelt... we are taken from Satan's spiritual kingdom
(the result of Adam's original sin) and we are translated into the Kingdom of God.

Since the cross, Jesus and His disciples have RULED the spiritual Kingdom...
there are plenty of verses showing Jesus (and his saints) RULING during the Church Age
and until the "end of this age".

However, Jesus does not take control of the physical/political kingdoms of the world until
the sounding of the Seventh Trumpet - AFTER the church age is finished and AFTER the
Great Tribulation / Revelation Beast is finished.


Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven,
saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ;
and he shall reign for ever and ever.


When we understand the CONTEXT of the two (2) separate and distinct "Kingdoms" on earth,
then there is no problem understanding how Jesus and His saints "lived and reigned" over the
spiritual Kingdom during the Great Commission or Church Age.

The physical/political kingdoms are not TAKEN from Satan and RULED by Christ
until the Seventh Trumpet sounds.

Click to expand...

I was only referring to physical kingdom in that post, but sure, I can understand how spiritualizing the meaning of words makes it easy to reconcile.

Guojing said:

You have to understand that male Jews from Israel were circumcised when they were 8 days old.

So when you claim that James delegitimize circumcision, just because he made no mention of it in his letter, is subjective at best.

Click to expand...

Don't you do something similar by arguing that he legitimized circumcision just because he didn't specifically deligitimize it?

To me, you already start with that as an axiom and you are attempting to insert that into the book of James.

To put it in another way, whatever Paul said about physical circumcision in Galatians 5, especially when you reach the 2nd verse, did James, Peter and John said the same explicitly?

Click to expand...

Why does it matter if they did or not? What Paul said is true, right? So, surely, James, Peter and John would not teach anything different than Paul did. And there is no indication whatsoever in Galatians 5 that Paul was only talking about Gentiles when he said "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law" (verse 3) and when he said "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value" (verse 6). Verse 3 explains why circumcision has no value for anyone, Jew or Gentile. Paul made a general statement about circumcision that is true for anyone, whether Jew or Gentile. By being circumcised it makes someone obligated to obey the whole law. Which is impossible to do because as James said in James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it". Obviously, no one keeps the whole law perfectly (except Jesus), so this shows that circumcision is not a requirement for anyone who follows Christ, including Jews.

If all you can say is that, "since they never talk about physical circumcision, they must be thinking the same as Paul," that is reading into scripture to me.

Personally James exchange with Paul in Acts 21:18-25 is very clear, to me at least, how important physical circumcision remain for Jews, but gentile believers, as he stated in vs 25 is exempted.

Click to expand...

Was Paul trying to confuse his readers when he said circumcision has no value? Again, he explained why it has no value. Because the only way it could have value is if someone perfectly kept the law, which is impossible (except for Jesus).

The only reason Paul did not correct James in Acts 21:18-25 is because of what he said here:

1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

First, notice that Paul, a Jew, said he was "not under the law". So, why would any Jewish Christians be under the law when Paul was not? That would make no sense. Also, notice how Paul "became like a Jew, to win the Jews" and "to those under the law" became "like one under the law". That's why he didn't bother trying to correct James and went along with the purification rituals. He didn't want to risk offending them and causing them to stumble. It wouldn't have been worth it. He was instead focused on becoming "like a Jew, to win the Jews".

Guojing said:

No one is playing any games. I was simply reminding you that the answer you are looking for has already been stated.

Click to expand...

But, you just assumed that I had already read it, which isn't fair to me for you to expect that. I don't read every single post in every thread I post in. Sorry if that disappoints you that I don't read all of your posts that aren't addressed to me.

If you cannot even understand what Matthew 28:20 is saying literally, the problem lies with you.

Click to expand...

Don't say things like this to me without explaining what you mean. What are you talking about here?

Guojing said:

The term "spiritual Israel" actually comes from your own imagination.

I don't recall any such term in scripture, but feel free to show me

Click to expand...

Why do you continue with this ridiculous argument? When did I say that term is explicitly stated in scripture? I didn't. In fact, I said it's not explicitly stated in scripture. Your argument is just as valid as arguing that there will be no "rapture" because the word "rapture" isn't in scripture and that there is no trinity because the word "trinity" isn't in scripture. Please don't waste time making these kinds of weak arguments.

Spiritual Jew said:

Don't say things like this to me without explaining what you mean. What are you talking about here?

Click to expand...

That Peter, James and John taught everything Christ commanded them to do in the book of Matthew, aka obedience to the Law, including physical circumcision, for Jews to enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:19).

Spiritual Jew said:

Why do you continue with this ridiculous argument? When did I say that term is explicitly stated in scripture? I didn't. In fact, I said it's not explicitly stated in scripture. Your argument is just as valid as arguing that there will be no "rapture" because the word "rapture" isn't in scripture and that there is no trinity because the word "trinity" isn't in scripture. Please don't waste time making these kinds of weak arguments.

Click to expand...

I am saying your statement "Because it's not taught in scripture that spiritual Israel is different than the body of Christ" makes no sense to me, when that term does not even appear in scripture.

Spiritual Jew said:

Don't you do something similar by arguing that he legitimized circumcision just because he didn't specifically deligitimize it?

Why does it matter if they did or not? What Paul said is true, right? So, surely, James, Peter and John would not teach anything different than Paul did. And there is no indication whatsoever in Galatians 5 that Paul was only talking about Gentiles when he said "I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law" (verse 3) and when he said "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value" (verse 6). Verse 3 explains why circumcision has no value for anyone, Jew or Gentile. Paul made a general statement about circumcision that is true for anyone, whether Jew or Gentile. By being circumcised it makes someone obligated to obey the whole law. Which is impossible to do because as James said in James 2:10, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it". Obviously, no one keeps the whole law perfectly (except Jesus), so this shows that circumcision is not a requirement for anyone who follows Christ, including Jews.

Was Paul trying to confuse his readers when he said circumcision has no value? Again, he explained why it has no value. Because the only way it could have value is if someone perfectly kept the law, which is impossible (except for Jesus).

The only reason Paul did not correct James in Acts 21:18-25 is because of what he said here:

1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

First, notice that Paul, a Jew, said he was "not under the law". So, why would any Jewish Christians be under the law when Paul was not? That would make no sense. Also, notice how Paul "became like a Jew, to win the Jews" and "to those under the law" became "like one under the law". That's why he didn't bother trying to correct James and went along with the purification rituals. He didn't want to risk offending them and causing them to stumble. It wouldn't have been worth it. He was instead focused on becoming "like a Jew, to win the Jews".

Click to expand...

I am talking about what James was believing at Acts 21:18-25, regarding obedience to the Law of Moses for Israel.

Your entire post here is about Paul and what he believes in.

Guojing said:

That Peter, James and John taught everything Christ commanded them to do in the book of Matthew, aka obedience to the Law, including physical circumcision, for Jews to enter the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:19).

Click to expand...

My goodness, do you actually believe that Jewish Christians are expected to keep all 613 commandments of the old covenant law? That isn't what Jesus was saying there. He was talking about the moral law specifically there, not the ceremonial and ritualistic laws. Why would Jesus command anyone to do something like circumcision that Paul specifically said had no value to anyone?

Guojing said:

I am talking about what James was believing at Acts 21:18-25, regarding obedience to the Law of Moses for Israel.

Your entire post here is about Paul and what he believes in.

Click to expand...

What do you think, that Paul and James believed different things and taught different things that were contradictory? Do you not understand that they both were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what they did and neither of them taught anything that contradicted the other? It seems like you think Paul taught things which contradicted what Peter, James and John taught. Is that what you believe?

Spiritual Jew said:

Why would Jesus command anyone to do something like circumcision that Paul specifically said had no value to anyone?

Click to expand...

To me, everything in Matthew 28:20 literally means everything.

To you, everything can mean "He was talking about the moral law specifically there, not the ceremonial and ritualistic laws."

No wonder you find it difficult to understand scripture literally.

Guojing said:

I am saying your statement "Because it's not taught in scripture that spiritual Israel is different than the body of Christ" makes no sense to me, when that term does not even appear in scripture.

Click to expand...

The concept of spiritual Israel does. What would you prefer me to call it? In Galatians 6:15-16 it's called "The Israel of God", so I can use that term if you prefer. In Romans 9:6-8 it's just called Israel. Seems like it would be confusing if I just called it that. We call it spiritual Israel to differentiate from national Israel. I think that's reasonable.