It is not as though the Word of God has failed

[keras]

In Romans 9:1-18 Paul says: But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Jacob; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “Through Isaac your descendants will be named.” That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as descendants.

In verses 1–5 he expresses his grief over the lostness of his kinsmen, the Jewish people. He says in verse 3, “I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” And what receives the emphasis in verses 4–5 is not that Israelites are Paul’s kinsmen but that they are God’s kinsmen. It says: They are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants. So the crisis in verses 1–5 is not only a personal one for Paul, it is a theological one all of us whose eternity hangs on God’s faithfulness. The crisis created in verses 1–5 is that ethnic Israel is God’s chosen, covenant people, and that most of them seem to be accursed and cut off from Christ and from salvation. Has God been faithful to his promises? If not, what are we hoping for?


We must keep in mind that this is the crisis Paul is dealing with. Israel is God’s chosen people and most of them are perishing, cut off from the Savior, Jesus Christ. And the reason it is a crisis for you, and not just for Jews, is that, if God’s promises to Israel do not hold true, then there is no reason to think his promises to you will hold true. The rock solid security of God’s Christian elect in Romans 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies!. This security that we exult in, at the heart of our faith, is worthless if God proves unfaithful to his covenant people. If God does not keep his promises to Israel, will he keep the promises he makes to us Christians?

But it is not as though the word of God has failed. That is Paul’s assertion against the crisis described in verses 1–5. Yes, it is true that many in the covenant people are accursed and cut off from Christ, and yes it is true that God chose Israel and made a covenant with her and gave her promises, but, no, it is not true that the word of God has failed. That is Paul’s assertion.

But everything else through this chapter, and indeed almost everything through the next three chapters, is an argument or a support for this assertion. And so keep in mind as we see in this chapter that some of the clearest and most forceful statements in the Bible about unconditional election and the sovereignty of God in salvation are made here to prove God’s faithfulness to his promises.


Now then, what is Paul’s argument in support of God’s faithfulness? How can he say that the word of God has not failed even though many Israelites are accursed and cut off from Christ? He states his answer three times in verses 6–9 and gives two Old Testament quotations to support it.

First, in verse 6b 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. The fact is: there is an Israel of God, His saving promises are made to them, the ‘set apart people’ and these promises have never failed.

Second, in verse 7a he says it a little differently, but makes the same point: Nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants. In other words, he is distinguishing here between two kinds of “children” – there are all of Abraham’s descendants, and there is a group within that number whom he calls here “the children,” or we could say, “the true children” since the others are physical children also. The truth is that the promises of God hold true for the true children of Abraham but not for every descendant of Abraham. So in verse 6 he says that not all Israel is Israel, and in verse 7 he says that not all the children of Abraham are God’s children. The word of God has not failed, because it was meant for the true Israel, the true Spiritual children, and it has never failed any of them.

Third, 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.

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.

Now we need to look at Paul’s Old Testament support for this. But first remember that we have seen three different statements of Paul as to why the word of God to Israel has not failed:

Verse 6b: They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel.

Verse 7a: Nor are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants.

Verse 8: It is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.

That is why the word of God has not failed even though so many Israelites are lost and cut off from Christ. They were not true Israelites. They were not true children of Abraham. They were children of the flesh but not children of promise, that is, children of God.

Where does Paul find the idea that the promise of God is not simply for every Israelite, but for those who are children of promise? And what does that mean – children of promise?

Paul gives two illustrations in verses 6–9 and in verses 10–13: The children of Abraham and Sarah and the children of Isaac and Rebecca. After Paul says: Nor are they true children because they are Abraham’s descendants, he quotes Genesis 21:12 Through Isaac your descendants will be named. Even though you have an older son, Ishmael, he will not be the heir of the promise.

Then Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3…Jacob I love and Esau I hate….

So, again, it is God’s choice that dictates the line of the Promise.
I make the promise, God says. And I bring it to pass. My promises are not predictions of what may come about with your help. My promises are declarations of what I intend to bring about by my sovereign power. I will come, and Sarah shall have a son.

So what is a child of promise, a child of God? A child of promise is the recipient of God’s saving grace, not because of ethnic origin or physical birth, or of any human action, only because of God’s sovereign Word. The birth of Isaac is a picture of how every child of God spiritually comes into being. The decisive work is God’s work. Not Abraham’s and not Isaac’s and not ours. Only God’s choice. John 15:16

What then is the answer to the crisis of verses 1–5: Has the word of God failed because many Jews are accursed and cut off from Christ? Have the promises of God come to naught? The answer is no.

The reason Paul gives three times is that the promise of God itself accomplishes its purpose, and that purpose is to gain for Himself a righteous holy people, who will live in all of the holy Land as His witnesses, Isaiah 43:10 and be the Light to the nations, Isaiah 49:8, as He always intended.

Ezekiel 20:38 says how God will take the ethnic Israelites out of the nations where they now live, judge them and only the righteous, joined by every other true Christian believer, will enter the holy Land. Isaiah 35:1-10

The way God brings into being His true Israel is, finally by sending his Son, Jesus Christ, as the true Seed of Abraham, the Son of David, and, in the deepest sense, Israel Himself. And now every person, Jew or Gentile, who trusts in Christ, is united to him and becomes part of God’s true Israel in Christ. And that Israel includes people from every tribe, race, nation and language. Isaiah 66:18b, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Revelation 7:9

Ref: John Piper

 

[peacefulseeker]

It is importsnt that people.keep the Faith. It seems to be in remission around the world when it could be growing and having the world scientifically challenge, question/support religion. The support of religion will improve from testing its voracity.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

And the reason it is a crisis for you, and not just for Jews, is that, if God’s promises to Israel do not hold true, then there is no reason to think his promises to you will hold true.

I'm sorry this is taking me by surprise. Geopolitical Isreal does not hold any authority over the Gospel. Their covenants are over and we are now in the New Covenant through our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His Gospel of salvation by the indwelling of His Holy Spirit, is His promise to the world if one believes.
That being said, I understand there is a sector in Christianity that puts much emphasis on modern day Israel but what you have said is a bridge too far for me.
Blessings.

 

[keras]

I understand there is a sector in Christianity that puts much emphasis on modern day Israel

Yes; they are the people who believe they will be 'raptured to heaven', while the Jews get tribulation and finally become Christians.
All of which is false teaching and cannot be found in the Bible.

 

[rturner76]

The word of God lives forever although our Earthly bodies don't. Trust in him.

 

[oikonomia]

Yes; they are the people who believe they will be 'raptured to heaven', while the Jews get tribulation and finally become Christians.
All of which is false teaching and cannot be found in the Bible.

Keras, do you want to debate with me about the rapture, for the sake of pinpointing the truth to others observing?
I am ready to give reply for the hope that is within me, with respect and meekness (hopefully).
(That is the hope, not the hype).

If so, this statement "All of which is false teaching and cannot be found in the Bible" is not true as it pertains to catching away of believers from the earth, aka Rapture. I do not propose to defend some of the other matters you included.

You were bold, so on guard! Maybe we can keep it down to reasonably sized exchanges, as I see, like me, you too can be verbose, squeezing as much as you can into one post.

 

[keras]

Keras, do you want to debate with me about the rapture, for the sake of pinpointing the truth to others observing?
I am ready to give reply for the hope that is within me, with respect and meekness (hopefully).
(That is the hope, not the hype).

If so, this statement "All of which is false teaching and cannot be found in the Bible" is not true as it pertains to catching away of believers from the earth, aka Rapture. I do not propose to defend some of the other matters you included.

You were bold, so on guard! Maybe we can keep it down to reasonably sized exchanges, as I see, like me, you too can be verbose, squeezing as much as you can into one post.

It is the being raptured To heaven, that I oppose. The 'catching away, as Prophesied by Paul in 1 Thess 4:17, is not to heaven; as Jesus has just departed from heaven, but to Jerusalem, where Jesus will reign from for the next thousand years. It will simply be a transportation, as demonstrated by Philip. Acts 8:39 As stated in Matthew 24:30-31

I am happy to discuss this issue with you, by unfortunately, I am leaving tomorrow on a 12 day cycling trip and am having a break from the forums.
Please take a look at my website: logostelos.info I have written several articles on the subject of the rapture.
What I do my best to convey, is the amazing future that God has planned for His faithful people on earth.

 

[oikonomia]

It is the being raptured To heaven, that I oppose.

I would submit that there is no need to generalize that all "rapture" speaks of taking to heaven.
If you make a blanket criticism that there is in no case rapture to heaven, that would be overkill.

I think it is wise to realize that there are also significance instances which do not involved the raptured one's destination was heaven
And I would include those in First Thess. 4:17 who are caught up to meet the Lord in the air.
Of course Philip would be another exception and we do not know for sure about where one or two others were caught up.

Having said that, the Manchild in Revelation 12 is caught up to the throne of God in heaven.
And the Manchild is a corporate entity and not just the baby Jesus who was not raptured to heaven upon birth.

The other group which are caught up to heaven is the 144,000 Firstfruits of Revelation 14 whose voice is heard out of heaven.
And they are on a heavenly Mount Zion before the Lamb Christ and the living creatures which were seen THERE, in heaven - chapter 4.

The reason that it does not show the Firstfruits physically "going up" I am sure is that the emphasis is on that fact
that in their hearts they were already there. This showing the normal side of rapture. You are transported in body to where
your inward spirit has been and your heart has been set WHILE following the Lord on the earth.

As we naturally tend to focus on arriving, God in many places focuses on that fact that
our life as overcomers should be there. See Colossians 3. Their being suddenly physically there is no shock because they have LIVED daily with their hearts and minds on the things above where Christ is.

That is two groups (the Manchild & the Firstfruits) who ARE raptured not just to the air but to the heaven of heavens.

The 'catching away, as Prophesied by Paul in 1 Thess 4:17, is not to heaven; as Jesus has just departed from heaven, but to Jerusalem, where Jesus will reign from for the next thousand years. It will simply be a transportation, as demonstrated by Philip. Acts 8:39 As stated in Matthew 24:30-31

That is good enough for a first pass.
And enjoy your cycling trip and be safe.

We can take up with this brief post latter.
The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.

 

[oikonomia]

A Song on the collective Manchild overcoming the accuser of the brothers in Revelation 12:

 

[Diamond72]

He says in verse 3, “I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”

He was beaten and stoned as he sacrificed himself for their sake. As we all are. We show love and kindness but that is not always what we get in return. But our reward is in Heaven, a reward that does not perish. Yet this world and all that is in it will perish and there are people that want to go down with the sinking ship.

God does not ever fail or disappoint us, even if we wait longer than we want to wait. He does not change, He is the one that is waiting on us for the time when we are perfected and ready to receive the fullness of His provision.

 

[Diamond72]

It is the being raptured To heaven, that I oppose. The 'catching away, as Prophesied by Paul in 1 Thess 4:17, is not to heaven

I have been to Heaven more than once and I have talked to Paul in Heaven. Actually, I did not talk because I could not answer his question. He wanted to know why I was not living the righteous life God is calling us to live. Although that was my question, what does it mean to live right before God? We can be good under the law, but to be right before God means to separate ourselves from all that is not right.

 

[Bobber]

I have been to Heaven more than once and I have talked to Paul in Heaven. Actually, I did not talk because I could not answer his question. He wanted to know why I was not living the righteous life God is calling us to live. Although that was my question, what does it mean to live right before God? We can be good under the law, but to be right before God means to separate ourselves from all that is not right.

I'm not quick to believe 'I've been to heaven' stories although I do believe it has been experienced by a few. I believe it happened to a friend of mine but tell us more of your story. Did you die and go to heaven or was it a dream....I'm curious more about your story.

 

[Diamond72]

I'm not quick to believe 'I've been to heaven' stories although I do believe it has been experienced by a few. I believe it happened to a friend of mine but tell us more of your story. Did you die and go to heaven or was it a dream....I'm curious more about your story.

Half of the books in the library are fiction. Most of TV and movies are fiction. So if you think my story is imagination or fiction, that is fine. I have no problem with that. I use to love to read Christian books that are an allegory or told as a story.

I did die and they used a defibulator to bring me back. But I did not have any experience at the time. I do not like to have to go through that part of a person's story waiting for them to get around to the Heaven part of the story.

I did have a dream about my daughter in Heaven. That is a long and involved story that I am still learning about.

The time I talked to Paul I was reading my Bible. Romans 3:10-12 "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.'"

Paul was quoting Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3, but I only read one of those and I had a question of what it means to be good under the law and right with God. So I prayed and it was as if an angel told me that Paul wanted to talk to me. This was just a feeling. But in an instant, in a moment I was in Heaven with Paul. He seemed short but I could not see much in the way of detail. I was told our height has to do with our garments. If he was wearing a garment of praise we would be 7 feet talk. 6 feet with other garments. I think this was a reflection of their humility to allow me to be taller. I know the area of heaven we were in is the entrance area that all people gather together and all have access to. I was told it took Paul 3 seconds to get there, our "conversation" lasted 3 seconds and then it was three seconds for him to get back and then he thought for 3 seconds about our conversation. So I think I took up 12 seconds of his time but maybe it was 15 seconds.

There is a lot of detail. They give you a packet of information and you learn over time. The most important part of the story of my daughter was all the toys she had. At least 40 or 50, but maybe 50 or 60. They were heavenly toys, more advanced than here on Earth. They were all new in the Pkg and she did not play with them at all. I asked what was that all about. I was told that each toy was a gift when a relative went to visit her. So she remembered them by the toy they left. Then later on after I Ieft she asked why I did not leave a toy. Somewhere along the way and it could have been when my son went to visit her, she found out I was her father. She was so very excited and all of her friends were excited for her. Heaven, of course, is a happy place, but still it is sad that so may of the children will never know their parents.

 

[keras]

Hilarious!
defibrillator - an instrument to reset heart rhythm
defibulator - no fibs allowed!.

Re; the rapture to heaven theory, What actually is Prophesied, is the amazing Blessings that God has promised to His people, as they live in peace and prosperity in all of the holy Land. It's all there, just read it and understand the Prophesies.

Now; on my bike!

 

[oikonomia]

Re; the rapture to heaven theory, What actually is Prophesied, is the amazing Blessings that God has promised to His people, as they live in peace and prosperity in all of the holy Land. It's all there, just read it and understand the Prophesies.

Keras, it is said that those who overcome will shepherd the nations.

"And he who overcomes and he who keeps My works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations. And he will shepherd them with an iron rod as vessels of pottery are broken in pieces, as I also have received from My Father " (Rev. 2:26,27)

It is more reasonable to me to see the saints who are thus rewarded to be dispersed throughout the world. The many nations will be over the whole globe. And the cities over which the victors are to reign are also around the globe.

"And he said to him, Well done, good slave, Because you have become faithful in that least, have authority over ten cities." (Luke 19:17)
"And he said to this one as well, And you, be over five cities." (v.19)

Do you think the overcomers will STAY in the Holy Land yet have authority over cities here and there around the globe?
The whole earth becomes His possession. And He grants His overcoming saints responsibility over all His posessions.

"Blessed is that slave whom his master, when he comes, will find so doing. Truly I tell you that he will set him over all his possessions." (Luke 12:44)

The saints should therefore not be restricted to stay only in the Holy Land. Rather the whole earth is brought into holiness as "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ." (Rev. 11:15)

Daniel interprets the divine dream of Nebuchadnessor to mean the whole earth is filled with the kingdom of the Son of Man.

" You were watching until a stone was cut out without hands, and itstruck the image at its feet of iron and clay and crushed them.
Then the ironm the clay, thebronzem the silver, and the gold were crushed all at once, and they became like chaff from the summer threshing floors, and the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." (Dan. 2:34,35)

The interpretation is that the kingdom of God fills the entire earth. It is more than just the Holy Land though it be the capital area of the whole earth.

"And in the days of those kings the God of the heavens will raise up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, . . . it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms; and it will stand forever." (v.44)

So we should think not just of our blessing. We must think of God's purpose. And having the reigning saints over many cities is His purpose that they establish His kingdom beyond just the Holy Land. The Son asks of the Father to make all the nations His interitance.

"Ask of Me, And I will give the nations as Your inheritance and the limits of the earth as Your possession.
You will break them with an iron rod; You will shatter them like a potter's vessel.' (Psalm 2:8,9)

Comparing this to Revelation 12:5 and Revelation 2:26-27 we have every reason to believe the corporate Manchild of overcomers will not be restricted just Israel if they are to shepherd the nations on behalf of Christ.

'And she brought forth a son, a manchild, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne."(Rev. 12:5)

This verse speaks of both rapture to the third heavens where the throne of God is and of co-reigning of the same over the nations strongly, as Christ is the King of kings of all the earth's nations.

For one thousand years the rewarded saints will reign with Christ over the whole of the inhabited earth. He brings the matured brothers of the Firstborn into the inhabited earth.

"And when He brings again the Firstborn into the inhabited earth . . . For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in leading many sons into glory, . . . " (Hebrews 1;6,10)

None of this negates that saints will see the Holy Land. It establishes that there is no reason to think they are restricted to stay only there.
It is a matter beyond what is a blessing to us. It is also a matter of what is the will and purpose of God.

 

[bling]

I have taught Romans 9 many times to adults and will spend hours on it. You have to keep it in context of not only Ro. 9-11, but also all of Romans and what Paul is teaching. We like to pull verses out to support a point, but do not address why that verse was written to that place at that time.



Vessels of mercy did not have to be specifically “named” when God decided to glorify them and shower them with gifts.

You really need to put every verse in Ro. 9 in the context of at least all of Ro. 9, ro. 9-11 and all of Romans.



Romans 9

Paul uses two teaching methods throughout Romans even secular philosophy classes will use Romans as the best example of these methods. Paul does an excellent job of building one premise on the previous premises to develop his final conclusions. Paul uses an ancient form of rhetoric known as diatribe (imaginary debate) asking questions and most of the time giving a strong “By no means” and then goes on to explain “why not”. Paul’s method goes beyond just a general diatribe and follows closely to the diatribes used in the individual laments in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament, which the Jewish Christians would have known extensively. These “questions or comments” are given by an “imaginary” student making it more a dialog with the readers (students) and not just a “sermon”.

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The main question (a diatribe question) in Romans 9 Paul addresses is God being fair or just Rms. 9: 14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!

This will take some explaining, since just prior in Romans 9, Paul went over some history of God’s dealings with the Israelites that sounds very “unjust” like “loving Jacob and hating Esau” before they were born, but remember in all of Paul’s diatribes he begins before, just after or before and just after with strong support for the wrong answer (this makes it more of a debate and giving the opposition the first shot as done in all diatribes).

Some “Christians” do not seem to understand How Paul uses diatribes and think since he just showed God being “unjust” and saying God is “not unjust” that God has a special God definition of “just”, making God “just” by His standard and appearing totally unjust by human standards. God is not a hypocrite and does not redefine what He told us to be true.

Who in Rome would be having a “problem” with God choosing to work with Isaac and Jacob instead of Ishmael and Esau? Would the Jewish Christian have a problem with this or would it be the Gentile Christians?

If God treaded you as privileged and special would you have a problem or would you have a problem if you were treated seemingly as common and others were treated with honor for no apparent reason?

This is the issue and Paul will explain over the rest of Romans 9-11.

Paul is specific with the issue Rms. 9: 19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?”

The Jews were created in a special honorable position that would bring forth the Messiah and everyone else was common in comparison (the Gentiles).

How do we know Paul is specifically addressing the Jew/Gentile issue? Rms. 9: 30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.

Paul is showing from the position of being made “common” vessels by God the Gentiles had an advantage over the Israelites (vessels of honor) that had the Law, since the Law became a stumbling stone to them. They both needed faith to rely on God’s Love to forgive them.

Without going into the details of Romans 9-11 we conclude with this diatribe question: Romans 11: 11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring!

The common vessels (gentiles) and the vessels of honor (Jews) are equal individually in what is really significant when it comes to salvation, so God is not being unjust or unfair with either group.

If there is still a question about who is being addressed in this section of Rms. 9-11, Paul tells us: Rms. 11: 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

Rm 9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

This verse is not saying all the “vessels” created for a “common purpose” were created for destruction (they were not made from the start by the Potter “clay pigeons”). Everything that leaves the potter’s shop is of great quality. Those vessels for destruction can come from either the common group or the honor group, but God is being patient with them that will eventually be destroyed. The vessels God does develop great wrath against, will be readied for destruction, but how did they become worthy of destruction since they left the potter’s shop with his mark on them? Any vessel (honorable or common) that becomes damaged is not worthy of the potters signature and He would want it destroyed.

To understand this as Common vessels and special vessels look at the same idea using the same Greek words of Paul in 2 Tim 2: 20. There Paul even points out the common can become the honored vessel.

Just because Paul uses a Potter as being God in his analogy and Jerimiah uses a Potter as being God in his analogy, does not mean the analogies are conveying the exact same analogy. Jerimiah is talking about clay on the potter’s wheel being change while still being malleable clay (which fits the changing of Israel), but Paul is talking about two pots (vessels) so they cannot both be Israel, the clay is the same for both and the clay is not changing the outcome of the pot. The two pots (vessels) are completed and a person is asking “Why did you make me like this”, so it is about “how a person is made (born)” and not a nation.

Since Jerimiah talks only about one pot on the wheel changing and Paul is talking about two kinds of completed pots (vessels), who are the two different pots?



Paul is saying in 2 Tim 2: 21 even after leaving the shop the common vessels can cleanse themselves and thus become instruments for a special purpose. So, who is the common vessel and who is the special vessel in this analogy?

That is a short explanation, since you really need to study all of Romans especially chapters 9, 10 and 11. Also please look at individual laments in the Psalms and diatribes in general, I really cut those short.

 

[oikonomia]

A few words on Second Timothy 2:21. But I would like to start from verse 17.

"And their word will spread as gangrene, of which are Hymenaeus and Philetus, (v.17)
Who concerning the truth have misaimed, saying that the resurrection
has already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some. (v.18)
However, the firm foundation of God stands having this seal, The Lord knows those who are His,
and, Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness. (v.19)
But ub a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen;
and some unto honor . and some unto dishonor; (v.20)
Iftherefore anyone cleanses himself from, these, he will be a vessel unto honor,
sanctified, useful to the master, prepared unto every good work. " (v.21)

When some see the phrase "a great house" it may sound positive. Ie. they may be thinking that "the Lord's Church is a great house."
The greatness here is bigness, hugeness yet not "great" in terms of what God intended.
It is the "great house" of a bloated, degenerated, leavened mixture of degradation in which some believers are mixed with unbelievers.

In Matthew 13 Christ gave two parables to show the degradation of the church to become Christiandom of mixture of some truth with error and of unbelievers with believers.

Matt. 13:31,32 - "Another parable He set before them, saying, The kingdom of the heavens is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; Which is indeed smaller than all the seeds, but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and roost in its branches."

Matt. 13:33 - "Another parable He spoke to them: The kingdom of the heavens is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened."

For some time I took these parables to be positive until I was persuaded that they are warnings of the changing nature of the kingdom of the heavens in a negative way. Leaven leavening the whole lump is bad as leaven means evil things or evil doctrines (Galatians 5:9; 1 Cor. 5:6-8). And the disciples were told to beware of the leaven of the scribes and Pharisees which was hypocrisy. (Matt. 16:6, 11-12)

The birds lodging in the plant which changed in nature to go from a humble seed to a great tree, are evil demonic things. The birds are evil spirits in the same chapter in verses 4 devouring the seeds of the truth of the Gospel of the kingdom from people's hearts. Their hearts are hardened by being too close to the worldly traffic.

"Behold a sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds indeed fell beside the way, and the birds came and devoured them." (13:3b,4)
And Christ's own interpretation:
"You, therefore, hear the parable of the sower. When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand, the evil one comes and snatches away that which has been sown in his heart; this is the one sown beside the way." (vs. 18,19)

The birds lodging in the branches of the mustard seed transmuting into a huge tree must be something of the evil one's minions lodging
in the branches of the degraded Christiandom. This leavened loaf and this mutating great tree is also the "great house" spoken of by Paul in Second Timothy in which there are vessels of honor and of dishonor conglomerated together negatively in the decline of the church.

The example of dishonorable vessels are the two false teachers Hymenaeus and Philetus. They totally misaimed at the truth teaching that the resurrection of the saints was a hope to come. They were spreaders of gangrene to the believers, destroying the faith of some. They were vessels. Yet FROM such vessels the believers should remove themselves.

cont. below

 

[oikonomia]

The "great house" of Second Timothy 2:21 is includes dishonorable vessels teaching lies instead of the truth.
The church is "the pillar and base of the truth" and these dishonorable vessels deviated, misaimed, and missed the mark of the truth.

It was not just a matter of their wrong teaching but of their wrong living which denied the divine power of Christ's life.
Verses 14 through 18 give instructions about how to deal with heresies. This is on the negative side. But on the postive side the instructions deal with the handling of the truth. Ie. "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed workman, cutting straight the word of the truth."

The "great house" of Christiandom includes those living by the divine nature of the Father and the redemptive work of Christ - " . . . in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels . . ." ) but also those living dishonorable lives in the old man, fallen nature which remains untransformed by the work of the Triune God. " . . . in a great house there are not only gold and silver vessels, but also wooden and earthen, and some unto honor , and some unto dishonor . . ." (v.20)

Because there is room for those living still by the old nature to repent and allow God to wrought His redemptive work in them sanctifying them with the nature of God's life those who are believers can cleanse themselves from the dishonorable vessels.

"If therefore anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, useful to the master, prepared unto every good work." (v.21)

They should not BE like the heretics Hymenaeus and Philetus. Nor should they associate with them to be influenced by the gangrene of their false teaching. They should not listen nor live like them, cleansing themselves from them to become vessels of honor. It really doesn't matter if Hymenaeus and Philetus were false brothers or real Christians. Though I am inclined to think they were false Christians, it would not matter if they were misled, misaiming true brothers. They were the stuff of "a great house" in the negative sense of mixture. leavening, hypocrisy, and error, not teaching or living by the Father's nature or according to the Son's redemption.

The foundation in "the firm foundation of God stands" must be the church as the pillar and base of the truth. We might be quick to think of Christ as the one foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11). But consistent with the church being "the base of the truth," which holds the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) the foundation is the normal church life here.

A major aspect of the truth is the resurrection of Christ which the dishonorable vessels taught in damaging way which spread like a disease. They lived not by Christ's life and warped the hope of the resurrection of the believers to the point of overthrowing the faith of others caught in that "great house" of degradation.

To depart was not merely a matter of letting go of untrue teaching and having true doctrines. It was more than this because it was a matter of departing from unrighteousness in living.

"However, the firm foundation of God stands, having this seal, The Lord knows those who are His, and Let everyone who names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness." (v.19)

In the great house of mixture God knows those who are His - who have the divine life imparted into them.
In the great house some are believers true and some are false Christians.
The outward evidence should follow those who DO have the life of God. It should be evidenced by their departing from unrighteousness.

This departing from unrighteousness must follow their naming the name of the Lord. It is abnormal that those with union with God's life not walk by that life to become vessels of honor useful to the master.

"If therefore anyone cleanses himself from these, he will be a vessel unto honor, sancrtified, useful to the master, prepared unto every good work." (v.21)

 

[oikonomia]

The main topic repeated extensively in Romans is the division in the Christian house churches in Rome between the Jews and Gentile Christians. You can just look up how many times Jews and gentiles are referred to see this as a huge issue.

The way God established churches though the apostles was according to cities.
The city wide church usually started in the house of someone.

The concept of house churches such that one city may include so many "house churches" is man's invention.
Though certainly meeting "from house to house" of the city wide church is desireable if harmonious and with the presence of the Lord.

Four times in the New Testament we read of a church in the house of someone/s.
But these were city wide churches which started in the house of some believer.

One might ask "Doesn't Paul mention house churches [plural} in the city of Rome?"
He mentions one house with a church meeting in it, that of the house of Prisca and Aquila.

"Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, Who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the nations; And great the church in their house." (Rom. 16:4,5a)

If it was properly a new testament church it should receive both Jews and Gentiles together.

Now that was the only church mentioned in Rome. Though "the church in Rome" is not found in the NT.
Paul mentions some other households. But he does not say there was a church in those houses.

"Greet those belonging to Aristoblus" (v.10). But he does not specify the church in his house.

"Greet those belonging to Narcissis, who are in the Lord" (v.11). But he does not say the church in his house.

"Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Ptrobas, Jermes, and the brothers with them." (v.14)
It is a warm greeting of love as the others. They are all members of the Body of Christ.
However he does not mention the church in their house.

Many warm greetings are made by Paul. But only one church in the house of someone does he mention.
And that is in the house of the dedicated couple his fellow workers in Christ, Prisca and Aquila.
The same couple hosted a meeting of the local church in their house in Ephesus.

In Jerusalem there were possibly hundreds of houses where the Jerusalem believers met.
They met in thetemple and from house to house.
But the though there may have been conservatively ten thousand believers meeting from house to house, the Scripture
does not ever say the churches [plural] in Jerusalem. If anywhere we should have heard of many house churches in one city, Jerusalem should have been that city. Peter preached and five thousand were saved and four thousand were saved, They broke bread and met to pray and worship from house to house.

Where is the mention of house churches [plural] among Jerusalem's thousands of saints? One city matched with one church is a principle
not deviated from in the New Testament.

Some might say that two or three gathered into the name of the Lord have the presence of the Lord according to Matthew 18:20.
"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, there I am in their midst."
It is wonderful that any two or three believers may have the assurance that the Lord is in their midst.
It is wonderful that two or three may pray with spiritual authority and move the hand of God.
However, every group of two or three may not be a church for this reason.

To speak of "cell groups" or "small groups" for rich blessing, prayer, building up and edification is quite healthy.
It is a step beyond the New Testament to speak of many houses where two or three have the presence of the Lord as necessarily a church.

But, to have the Lord's presence is entirely right.
But if Jesus meant that any and every group of two or three meeting in His name was automatically a church (ie, the church in their house)
then He would not have said, such a group should take their unresolved issue to the church. If they ARE the local church then they have no way to take their problem to the church.

"But if he does not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses ever word may be established. But if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to hear the church also . . . " (v.17a)

But if every two or three spirtual persons with the presence of the Lord is a local church, then there is no need for the two or three to take their unresolved issue to the church. This should mean to the responsible overseers of a local church. It may not be to take the problem to the thousands in Jerusalem so that no believer did not know of the problem. Take it to the church may mean to take it to the responsible elders of the church.

Since the plural word "churches" is seen in the New Testament we know the unversal church is practically divided into churches in time on the earth. So there must be a way that God distinguishes and would have us distinguish between one church and another.
Houses is not the distinction. Nor is race, street, nationality, color, particular servant of God no matter how useful, nor anything but geography. One city is matched with one church. And man cannot improve upon this God ordained bases of distinguishing a church from another church.

"I was in spirit on the Lord's day and heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,
Saying, What you see write in a book and send it to the seven churches:
To Ephesus, and to Smyrna, and to Pergamos, and to Thyatira, and to Sardis, and to Philadelphia, and to Laodiea.
And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me; and having turned I saw seven golden lampstands." (Rev. 1:11-13a)

One city is matched with one church.
One church is according to the city.
The division between this church and another church is only geographic, locality.
And that is the answer to divisions of Gentiles and Jews or any other ethnic division giving rise to man's idea of churches
smaller than or wider than a locality.

We cannot improve upon God's ordained ground of local oneness.
By nature God saw each one of these local churches (problems or no) as lampstands of gold shining His testimony.
They were not utopias. But they were normal city wide, locality wide churches.
Their names were synonomous with the cities in which they gathered to assemble for a church life.

The case of Colossia and Laodicea (Col. 4:15,16) as a rationale for man's concept of house churches is not dealt with in this post.
I am aware of that seeming exception. . . . "seeming".

Help to write this was received from "Further Talks on the Church Life" by Watchman Nee.
This book was a sequal to "The Normal Christian Church Life" a book of messages by the same speaker.
And footnotes to the Recovery Version Bible assisted. www.recoveryversion.org